Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

INVERNESS HARBOUR (CITADEL QUAY ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Inverness Harbour (Citadel Quay etc.) and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

INVERNESS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to Inverness Harbour; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1974–75

Accounts ordered.

Of the Contingencies Fund, 1974–75, showing:—

(1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1975.
(2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Devolution

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received with reference to the White Paper on Devolution.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Since the publication of the White Paper on 27th November 1975, I have received 142 letters from organisations and members of the public commenting on various aspects of the Government's proposals for devolution to Scotland.

Mr. Gourlay: Amongst those letters, has my hon. Friend received one from the Scottish National Party explaining the phrase "the gradual approach to independence"? Will he confirm that the Oxford Dictionary gives exactly the same meaning to both "independence" and "separatism"?

Mr. Ewing: I confirm my hon. Friend's assertion that the Oxford Dictionary describes "independence" and "separatism" as one and the same thing. But perhaps I should correct his quotation. I understand from the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that the SNP now adopts a gradual approach to separatism. The fact that I have not received a letter about it from the SNP is probably due to the fact that its members are having difficulty in understanding it themselves. No doubt they will write to me when they decide what it means.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Whilst appreciating the sort of black humour of the Under-Secretary of State's remarks, may I ask whether he accepts that in Scotland Chambers' is the preferable dictionary to both the shorter and longer Oxford Dictionary? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the election results in Scotland speak for themselves, in terms of the dissatisfaction of the Scottish people, from all points of view, with the White Paper on Devolution?

Mr. Ewing: If the election results in Scotland are to speak for themselves, I


think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will say "goodbye" to at least two of his colleagues in the next election. He may well appreciate my black humour, but I assure him that I do not reciprocate the feeling; I do not appreciate his black humour. If the SNP seeks to don new clothes and hopes that under the cloak of independence it will be more receptive to the people of Scotland than under the cloak of separatism, it is in for a rude awakening.

Mr. Sillars: Do the Government still stand by the view expressed by the Lord President of the Council in a parliamentary answer in December, in which he said that it remained impracticable to devolve industrial powers to the Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Ewing: The Government stand by the view that the White Paper is a discussion document. It is being discussed now. If the SNP does not want to discuss it, that does not mean that no one else wants to. It is being discussed, and we are receiving representations from a wide range of bodies to which we sent letters on 27th November asking for their comments.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentlemdan agree that 142 letters from various organisations is a pretty disappointing response? I accept the possibility that the figure is so small because many people are afraid that the Government are fairly fixed in their views. Will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the sponsoring by the Government of an all-party conference in Scotland to examine thoroughly the many divergent Scottish points of view on this issue?

Mr. Ewing: There are two sides to this question. The hon. Gentleman may well consider 142 letters to be disappointing. It would be disappointing if that were the whole picture, but the picture is completed only by my advising the House that of the 800,000 copies of the potted version of the White Paper distributed to post offices in Scotland, 500,000 have already been taken out. I am sure that the understanding that the Scottish people have gained from that potted version is reflected in the small number of letters that we have received.

Mr. Sproat: Will the hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues not to be rattled

or over-influenced by the result of the East Kilbride election, which can in any case be regarded as a normal result when any Government are trying to steer through a bad patch? Will he, rather, direct attention to the North-East of Scotland, where, in two recent by-elections, the SNP has been hammered into the ground by the Tories on an anti-Assembly ticket?

Mr. Ewing: I hope that I do not sound offensive to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Sproat) when I say that with friends like I have I do not need enemies.

Mr. Speaker: I have given a good run on Question No. 1. I know that it is harder for Celts, but one supplementary question by each Member called to ask one will enable me to call many more hon. Members to put supplementaries.

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on devolution from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Council has been invited to comment on the White Paper of 27th November 1975 and has indicated that it hopes to do so shortly.

Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware that when the Scottish Council sends him its views on the Scottish Assembly—and it will be sooner rather than later—it is likely that it will at last come round to the view that we should stop the centralisation of industrial decision-making and adopt full control over trade and industry, and the Scottish Development Agency?

Mr. Ewing: I am reminded that the last time the hon. Gentlman said that he was making a statement on behalf of the Scottish Council, the Council came out the next day with a categorical denial. Therefore, I do not place much credence on the ability of the hon. Gentleman to speak on behalf of the Scottish Council.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the Scottish Council's view on the desirability of decentralisation of industry and commerce, and also the fact that the Council's recent report shows that of all the non-governmental office jobs transferred out of London in the past 12


years less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. came to Scotland? Will he give an assurance about the steps that the Government intend to take to see that devolution is accompanied by a massive decentralisation, to ensure that more jobs come to Scotland from London and the South-East?

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend should be aware of the fact that even while we are discussing political devolution, the Government are involved in a massive dispersal operation comprising thousands of Civil Service jobs—[Interruption.] Glasgow is part of Scotland. To date, 31,000 Civil Service jobs have been dispersed. The people of Scotland will look at that dispersal programme against the background of the SNP's policy of separatism. No wonder the SNP is running scared from the idea of separatism and is trying to assume the cloak of independence.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that the common factor in every one of the Scottish Council's views, over many years, has been the refusal to contemplate any benefits to the Scottish economy flowing from Scottish separation from the rest of Britain?

Mr. Ewing: I am very much aware of that view, expressed by the Scottish Council over the years.

Mr. James Lamond: Does my hon. Friend not regard the existence of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), together with the other institutions established in Scotland to develop the economy, as an indication of the advantageous position in which Scotland finds itself relative to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is this not due in no small measure to the work done by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend?

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The work done by my right hon. Friend and successive Secretaries of State in attracting industry to Scotland is often forgotten. If the House is interested in the statement made over the years by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), it may like to know it was during my right hon. Friend's term of office in 1969 that the Scottish Council issued a statement saying that because of the Labour Government's regional policies it was able to attract an industry a day

to Scotland. That is eloquent testimony to my right hon. Friend's record.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any proposal to transfer industrial and economic powers from the Secretary of State to the Scottish Assembly to such an extent as would jeopardise the future existence of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland would be met with great hostility in Scotland? Does he accept that the office, if not the present incumbent, should continue for many years to come?

Mr. Ewing: I believe that both the office and the present incumbent should continue for a great many years. We have a commitment, which is welcomed by the vast majority of people in Scotland, to ensure that whatever Government are in power there will be a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet—a Minister who will be Scotland's voice there. That commitment will be kept.

Sureties in Bail

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made arising out of his inquiry regarding the practice whereby Scots standing as sureties in bail are compelled to travel to England in order to deposit such securities.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My Department has consulted the Home Office on this matter and I hope that it will be possible to provide a solution to the difficulty to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that two Airdrie people accepted responsibility to go bail for their son, who appeared on a charge in an English court, but were prohibited from making bail arrangements at the Airdrie police office? Is he aware that they were compelled to make two different journeys to Carlisle the nearest English town—travelling a total distance of 400 miles? Is it not time that this nonsense was stopped and people who live in Scotland were treated as British subjects? Will action now be taken to stop this shocking practice as soon as possible?

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a rather complex matter because of the different legal systems in Scotland and England. However, our discussions with the Home Office


are at a very advanced stage and we hope that a Bill to be introduced in the not too distant future will take care of the difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister accept that his reply was totally unsatisfactory? Nothing is easier than to make arrangements for an English person to obtain bail in Scotland. Why should it be impossible for the Home Office to act in the reverse situation?

Mr. Ewing: The Home Office has circulated all English courts explaining the difficulties arising from the kind of incident to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) referred. However dissatisfied the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is, I must tell him that we are on the point of resolving this matter to everybody's satisfaction.

Economic Prospects

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current economic indicators in relation to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current economic indicators in relation to the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): A broad range of indicators in relation to the Scottish economy is currently available and continuing efforts are being made to improve the reliability of existing series. There is scope for the development of additional series, and preparation of a revised index of industrial production for Scotland is in progress.

Mrs. Bain: In view of the complacency of the Secretary of State's reply and his abysmal contribution to last week's debate on the Scottish economy, may I ask him whether he has seen a report published by the Scottish Standing Conference on Voluntary Youth Organisations in which young people in Scotland are compared to their counterparts in Norway, the Netherlands and West Germany? Is he aware that by every

economic indicator—job opportunity, income level, and so on—the young people of Scotland come off very badly indeed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even for a Celtic lady, that was a lengthy supplementary question. If every hon. Member would come to the point and cut out preambles, it would help us all.

Mrs. Bain: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so complacent about the situation?

Mr. Ross: I am not complacent in answering the hon. Lady's question, but SNP Members always manage to get things wrong. They have their own attitude to statistics. I can well understand why the hon. Lady and her party did not like my recent reply on the subject of hypothermia.

Mr. Wilson: May I express my dissatisfaction with the Secretary of State's feeble reply? Has he taken note of that part of the Fraser of Allander Report, from which he has given selective quotes, stating that there will be a decline in employment and output? What message will he give to the Scottish people during 1976 for an uplift in their hopes and prospects?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is very good at selective quotations, too. I quoted a passage from the report which clearly suggests that the long-term outlook for Scotland is good.
Nobody denies that there are immediate difficulties and that we have to face them, but I should like to know what proposals the hon. Gentleman and his party are putting forward. So far as I can see, they are putting forward none at all. If he studies the report mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) he will see that the nation is in no position even to guess what the SNP intends to do.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Further to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), has the Secretary of State ever heard a more abysmal commentary on a debate on the Scottish economy than that initiated last week by the SNP?

Mr. Ross: The only thing that was worse than the first speech in that debate was the penultimate speech.

Dr. Bray: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in regard to two key indicators—wage rates and unemployment—the position of Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom is better now than it was two years ago?

Mr. Ross: That is correct.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that what matters to the people of Scotland lies less in the situation in the past than the situation for the future? Will he answer the question that has been posed to him on many occasions and to which we have been given no answer: what investment are the Government planning through their agencies, particularly the Scottish Development Agency, to bring about an improvement in the job situation in Scotland and to bring in new industries? What money will be made available this year and next year to that Agency?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should await the document to be published shortly on that subject.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems in the West of Scotland are similar to those experienced on Merseyside and elsewhere? Is it not clear that the Government need to change their economic strategy and get down to the job of reducing unemployment, on Socialist lines?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend has made that point effectively in recent speeches. He will appreciate that we are dealing not only with unemployment but also with the problem of inflation. The extent to which we succeed in that, and how quickly, will determine the rate at which we can proceed to a more general reflation, which my hon. Friend and I want to see.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What credence can the Scottish people put on the right hon. Gentleman's sunshine forecast when they recall that in his term of office between 1964 and 1970, although he promised more jobs for Scotland, when he went out of office there were 80,000 fewer jobs in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: We underestimated the number of new jobs that we would provide. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the reports produced at that time, he will dis-

cover that to be the case. We provided more new jobs than we estimated we would need.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic outlook for the West of Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: The longer-term economic outlook for the West of Scotland, as for the United Kingdom as a whole, is dependent on the success of the Government's anti-inflation policy and on achieving satisfactory growth in exports and investment. However, the measures which the Government have already taken to alleviate unemployment in the worst-affected areas will help to maintain employment in the West of Scotland, as will the further measures that are soon to be announced. In addition, the Government's intervention to prevent the closure of Chrysler's Linwood plant has saved several thousand jobs.

Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that shipbuilding and ship repairing are vital industries for the west of Scotland? In view of the present serious situation, which could soon become alarming, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is willing to initiate talks with the Secretary of State for Industry and his other Cabinet colleagues about the position of shipbuilding in Scotland? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much extra money is available this year to the Scottish Development Agency, in addition to the money needed for the functions that it has inherited from other bodies?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Development Agency has enough money to keep going until the annual announcement about Government expenditure, which will be made fairly soon. The shipbuilding issue is a serious matter, not merely for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom and, indeed, Western Europe. I do not need to initiate talks with my right hon. Friend, because I am in constant touch with him about it to see what can be done to stabilise the position.

Mr. Sillars: Does my right hon. Friend recall page 13 of the Labour Party's manifesto in Scotland, on which it was


said that we would not use unemployment to fight inflation? Is it not the case that the Government are using unemployment as one of the ways of fighting inflation?

Mr. Ross: I am aware of that quotation. I know most of the other quotations that I hear occasionally from manifestos. I assure my hon. Friend that his interpretation of Government policy is not accurate.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman in any way satisfied with the progress made by the job scheme for young people, which many of us want to see succeed? Does he not feel that he should put much greater pressure on local authorities and industries in Scotland to take up a chance that will cost them nothing?

Mr. Ross: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the present uptake of jobs. Dr. Docherty has been doing good work on this and has been in contact with local and other authorities. I hope that uptake will be improved. It may well be that some good news along these lines will come later.

Mr. Crawford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the economic future of the West of Scotland should not depend upon the central demand management policies of this House but, rather, on the indigenous efforts of the people of Scotland? Does he not further agree with me in totally deprecating the crocodile comments made by the Conservative Party about the Scottish Development Agency since the Conservatives voted against its creation?

Mr. Ross: I remember that in relation to one vital aspect of the Scottish Development Agency the hon. Gentleman joined the Conservatives. Of course, the future depends entirely on the people and the extent to which the opportunities are made available by this House. What is required is a co-operative effort on the part of management, men and Government—and responsibility from the Opposition. We find that the sniping at Scotland by some is to a certain extent destroying part of the political stability of Scotland, on which inward investment depends.

Mr. Selby: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing perturbation being expressed by large numbers of workers

in the smaller factories in the Govan area which are dependent on orders streamed off from larger factories, and which are now threatened by redundancies? Is he further aware that such workers do not regard a proposed Clyde-side Walkway as an answer to their problems?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should not exaggerate, or take one part of our programme concerning Glasgow and think that that is the only thing that is being done. If he looks at what we have already done for Glasgow in terms of new jobs and the new focus that we have given it through such things as the British National Oil Corporation and the Offshore Supplies Office, he will see that we are containing the position as far as possible and building up a new long-term future for Glasgow such as it has never had before. I assure my hon. Friend that the letters I receive from people in responsible positions in Glasgow show a due appreciation of what the Government have done.

Fish Landings

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the effect on landings of fish in Scottish ports as a result of the dispute with Iceland about fisheries limits.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The current dispute with Iceland has not had any significant effect upon fish landings at Scottish ports. Direct landings at Scottish ports from Iceland are relatively small, and changes in total landings are mainly due to seasonal factors.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the implications in the short term may not be great, the closing of Icelandic waters could have a catastrophic long-term effect on the Scottish fishing industry? Will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend convene a meeting with the Scottish fishing interests before the Law of the Sea Conference?

Mr. Brown: The use of the word "catastrophic" is an exaggeration. It is true that if any of the deep sea trawlers are forced out of their fishing areas there will be increasing pressure on inshore waters. It is our responsibility to look after the interests of the Scottish inshore


fleet, and we shall do that. The Secretary of State is due to reply to a Question which appears later on the Order Paper and which deals with the other points raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Watt: Can the Minister tell the the House how many Icelandic boats are operating within 50 miles of Shetland at the moment? Can he say how many thousands of tons of herring they are taking away, and at which ports that herring is being landed?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice. If the hon. Gentleman wants that information, he must table a Question.

Mr. Corrie: Who is likely to be in New York on 10th March to look after Scotland's fishing interests at the Law of the Sea Conference and to try to persuade people there that it is time that this country had a 200-mile limit to look after our fast diminishing stocks?

Mr. Brown: I agree that this is an important conference. The subject of representation is being discussed. It is a matter of keen interest to the Scottish industry. We shall be taking that fact into account in deciding the representation.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the Icelandic dispute is a relatively minor element among the problems presently facing the Scottish industry? Does he belive in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy? If so, what steps is he taking to help bring about such a renegotiation?

Mr. Brown: This is a relatively minor problem in terms of catch. I wish that the SNP would give us backing for the general principle of adhering to international agreements. Our fleet is fishing in international waters. I wish that the SNP—purporting to speak for the people of Scotland—would back that line, which is the line we have been taking.

Public Transport

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the effect on the Scottish economy of reductions in public transport.

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he

has for improvements in transport and travel by road and rail in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): I want to ensure that Scotland has an efficient and economical transport network, and, as part of this, services have to be adjusted from time to time as demand changes. At the local level, these matters are the responsibility of the regional and islands councils, through their transport policies and programmes.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware of the alarm felt in Scotland among rail and bus passengers who fear that their future services may be slashed? Is he aware that railwaymen and bus crews are entitled to know what their future will be? Will he come clean and state clearly what the public transport situation will be in Scotland in a few months' time?

Mr. Millan: There is no need for the alarm. The position about rail services has been made absolutely clear, and the alarmist stories that have appeared are quite without foundation. The main responsibility for meeting subsidies on uneconomic bus routes rests with the regional councils and I am glad to say that they, with the Scottish Transport Group, are making arrangements in different parts of Scotland.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Scottish Office fully alive to the real disaster that is looming ahead in large areas of Scotland where the regional councils find that they are instructed by the Government not to increase their budgets while the Scottish Transport Group is demanding ever larger sums for uneconomic services? When will the Government bring forward legislation on bus transport?

Mr. Millan: I thought it was generally accepted in the House that decisions on priorities on bus services were best taken by local authorities and not by central Government. In the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77, there is provided as much support for bus services generally as last year, but with a greater tilting of the balance towards rural services. This has all been agreed with the Convention of Local Authorities.

Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in the Central Region and elsewhere, where regional


councils are expected to subsidise bus routes but the Scottish Bus Group will provide information only about its unprofitable routes and refuses to give information about its profitable routes? Will my right hon. Friend instruct this publicly-owned bus company that it should provide this essential information in the public interest, otherwise it will get no help from public funds?

Mr. Millan: I did not know about that difficulty. Arrangements have been initiated by central Government so that the Scottish Bus Group and local authorities should get together to discuss their problems. We have provided finance through the rate support grant, but the main responsibility must rest with local authorities, in conjunction with the Scottish Transport Group. Certain figures have appeared in public suggesting that very large sums have been requested by the Scottish Bus Group, but after negotiations with local authorities satisfactory arrangements have been made in most cases.

Mr. Fairbairn: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no intention to close any essential rail routes to the centre and North of Scotland, to deteriorate further the bus routes in rural areas of those parts of Scotland, or to increase taxation on fuel or motorists, in order to prevent such things occurring?

Mr. Millan: The only circumstances in which rail services in Scotland would be threatened with the kind of massive closedown adumbrated in the newspapers would be if we accepted the usual exhortations of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) to make massive cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. MacCormick: Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure us in the Highlands by stating categorically that there are no current proposals to cut rail services to Oban, Fort William, Wick, Mallaig and Thurso?

Mr. Millan: Any proposal for any rail closure at any time is made publicly.

Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as motoring becomes more expensive, the requirement for public railways becomes greater rather than less? Is he aware that the last Con-

servative Government clearly decided that there was a need for a basic national network of rail services and that we have now reached a level at which we cannot cut any further without breaking that network?

Mr. Millan: We are already paying massive sums in subsidy to British Rail. The people calling for reductions in public expenditure well beyond anything that is likely to appear in next week's White Paper are hon. Members opposite.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

Mr. William Ross: I am meeting representatives of the Scottish Trawlers Federation and other organisations concerned with the fishing industry in North-East Scotland on 13th February.

Mr. Sproat: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is attending that meeting, but will he take to it an awareness that we are talking not just about a crisis but about the possible death of an industry in which 8,000 jobs are directly involved and another 20,000 jobs indirectly involved? Is he aware that we need financial aid of £4 million fast, and that this sum represents only 3 per cent. of what we are splashing out on Chrysler?

Mr. Ross: I shall listen with interest to all that is said by the Scottish Trawlers Federation, but I am not giving any hostages to generous fortune today.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the previous trawler subsidy scheme which lapsed in 1973 is still available under legislation and whether it could be reactivated, by Order, to provide a subsidy for an industry that is in serious trouble? Will he take this opportunity to deny the suggestions being made in some quarters that the Government are deliberately with-holding money from the industry in order to force it to slim down the number of vessels?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's last point is quite nonsensical. The Government have never embarked on that course. We


made clear at the outset, when we introduced the aid in 1975, that it was temporary, although my hon. Friend will remember that we continued it for a further period. During that time, a total of £3·2 million was paid in Scotland on total landings worth £59 million. In the longer term, there is no doubt that this industry, like others, must adjust to the market. I shall consider the legislative possibility raised by my hon. Friend.

Sir John Gilmour: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is meeting the Scottish Trawlers Federation and interests in the North-East, but does he realise that it is essential to meet the whole industry before the British delegation goes to the Law of the Sea Conference in New York, in March?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should not take it for granted that because I am meeting this section of the industry on Friday I have not met other sections. I have had a useful and confidential talk with representatives of the inshore fleet within the past week.

Grant-Aided Schools

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made towards the implementation of his policy that grant-aided schools be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 10th December.—[Vol. 902, c. 451–2.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since that date there have been 135 applications in Edinburgh to withdraw children from grant-aided schools and accommodate them in local authority schools, and a further 105 inquiries, making a total of 240 in all? Is he also aware that as soon as the increased fee structure to be announced by the Merchant Company comes forward that figure will substantially increase? Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy that where families cannot accommodate their children at these schools they should be allowed places at local authority schools? Is he aware that I shall be most grateful

if he will confirm this fact and keep the subject under review?

Mr. McElhone: I am interested in the hon. Member's figures, but the figures that I have are very different. In the 21 months between January 1974 and September 1975 there was a fall-out of 201 secondary school pupils—an average of 10 a month—which is hardly a dramatic figure. Of course we shall provide education for the pupils, and we have said we shall consider the position again if the situation at Mary Erskine School becomes very severe.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the policy decision on the Mary Erskine School shows that his alleged offer of choice to direct grant schools is a total sham? Will he confirm that the Government's policy is creating great hardship for many parents of limited resources because of the substantial increase in fees, and also that the policy is creating an educational shambles in Edinburgh—a shambles that has been condemned by the Socialist Convener of the Lothian Regional Council?

Mr. McElhone: I do not accept that. What worries me is that during the past four months at Scottish Question Time repeated reference has been made to one grant-aided school. Are the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) representing certain seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh or are they representing the Mary Erskine School? As the managers of the school have repeatedly stated, the long-term result of paying £3 million for Mary Erskine would be to ensure that the other Merchant Company fee-paying grant-aided schools would continue. That is not the Government's policy.

Mr. Canavan: If the Merchant Company is genuinely concerned about educational provision for all children and not just about getting its hands on some money through the sale of Mary Erskine's, to enable it to continue with its other over-privileged fee-paying schools, will my hon. Friend ask the Merchant Company whether it is prepared to give the Lothian Region the free use of the school building for comprehensive education until such time as the region can afford to buy it?

Mr. McElhone: I should accept that offer with gratitude.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was disgraceful. He is saying that his policy is not in the interests of the parents or of the children but is merely to spite the Merchant Company of Edinburgh. Let the hon. Gentleman say so straight out if that is what his policy is.

Mr. McElhone: We get fed up with seeing mechanical jack-in-the-boxes jumping up from the Opposition Benches to ask questions about this school. I hope that the machine will be switched off. The only inference the Government can draw from repeated questions from hon. Gentlemen about one grant-aided school is that hon. Members must be very happy with the Labour Government in Scotland.

Local Authority Staffs

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed by local authorities in each of the regions of Scotland in each of the years 1970 to 1975, inclusive.

Mr. Millan: This information is not available. Figures for the total number of staff employed by Scottish local authorities in the years mentioned, as notified to the Department of Employment, were given in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on 14th January.—{Vol. 903, c. 162.]

Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that I find it difficult to believe that the figures are not available, as we know, for example, that the total number employed in the Highland Region now is less than the totality previously employed by the authorities within that region? That is not so in certain other regions. What is the Minister doing to find out why that is, in support of the original criticism made of this expansion by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Millan: We are arranging in future to get regular figures, starting from March 1976. The difficulty about the Question put down by the hon. Gentleman is that it involves—perhaps not in the Highland Region but certainly in other regions—

dividing up the staff between one local authority and another to get the exact comparison in the new regions. We have given the total figures and, more important, we have made arrangements to monitor future staff changes. On the general question of staffing, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State has made his position clear.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend explain to those who make local authority staff numbers the all-too-easy target for their criticism that the ordinary people of Scotland need substantial help, and that to claim that a reduction in local authority staff is possible without a corresponding reduction of services is complete hypocrisy?

Mr. Millan: Yes. We have never asked for a reduction. Having regard to the need for stringency in public expenditure, we have asked local authorities not to keep adding to the number of staff, as they have done over the years. In most cases it would be fair to say that this has been done for good reasons, wholly supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The situation has changed. Nevertheless, I agree basically with what my hon. Friend said. If numbers are reduced it is difficult not to reduce services.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does the Minister realise that if Scotland has this absurd Assembly the number of staff will increase even more?

Mr. Millan: That is perhaps not absolutely relevant to the Question. The staffing implications of the Assembly are included in the White Paper.

Campbeltown

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Campbeltown.

Mr. William Ross: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. MacCormick: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that the people of Campbeltown will be deeply disappointed by that answer. Would he care to instruct his Department to take steps to make sure—especially in view of what has been said about the difficulties which face the fishing industry—that the fishermen of Campbeltown are not prosecuted by sea anglers and others, under an


ancient and disreputable byelaw, for employing otter boards when trawling in the Firth of Clyde?

Mr. Ross: It is not a byelaw; it is—I think—an Act of Parliament, of 1885. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I spoke about it last week to a certain knowledgeable person from Camp-beltown. The hon. Gentleman knows that the matter is sub judice and that there will be a trial in Kilmarnock on 31st March. The question of a change in the law does not arise at present, but the hon. Gentleman may take it that I understand the problem and the feelings of the fishermen. There is little I can do at the moment.

Emigration

Mr. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest emigration figures from Scotland.

Mr. Welsh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest figures for emigration from Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: Net emigration from Scotland in the year to June 1975 is estimated to have been about 19,000, comprising about 4,000 to the rest of the United Kingdom and about 15,000 to overseas.

Mr. Thompson: In view of that answer, will the Secretary of State tell us what arguments he would use to persuade an unemployed person in Scotland not to emigrate?

Mr. Ross: The arguments are my confidence and the confidence of most people in Scotland in the long-term future of their own country—as part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the age pattern for emigration from Scotland? If the young leave and the old return, what effect will that have on Scotland's economic future?

Mr. Ross: I require notice of that supplementary question. It varies. When people go overseas, the father usually goes first and the rest of the family go later. There is a certatin rhythm about it. One of the most interesting aspects

of the pattern at present is that the position is holding in relation to emigration south of the border, but there has been a spurt or boom in the past year—in relation to the United Kingdom, in the past two years—in emigration to overseas countries.

Mr. Sproat: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, under the 1964–70 Labour Government, emigration from the United Kingdom rose every year, under the Tory Government it fell every year, and now, under the Labour Government, according to figures produced last week, it is rising yet again?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has the figures wrong. When I took over in 1964 the figure was over 45,000 a year. By the time the Labour Government's period of office ended that figure was reduced to about 20,000.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the pattern not all too familiar—that Labour Governments have had to clear up the mess left by Tory Governments and, just as we have got on top of the problem, unfortunately we have lost office? This time we certainly shall not do that.

Mr. Ross: There is no doubt that it is not always the person who labours who reaps the harvest. What my hon. Friend says is quite true. I have been a Member of the House since 1946. We took over then when the country was bankrupt and put it on its feet. We did the same the last time we held office. We are doing the same thing again—cleaning up.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In his rhythmical approach to the question of emigration, will not the right hon. Gentleman reflect that the reduction in emigration to south of the border is perhaps because of the failure of his Government in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ross: I do not accept that at all.

Mr. Fairgrieve: In order to get the question in proper perspective, will the Minister comment on net immigration to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world?

Mr. Ross: There are indications that quite a number of people are coming back to Scotland. This is shown in the figures. One of the difficulties is that


the figures have to be analysed in order to distinguish the age groups and find out who the people are. There is no doubt that quite a lot of people have been attracted back to Scotland by the developments in oil. I am glad to say that many of them are Scots.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN OFFICE (STAFF)

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate what increases in the staff of the Crown Office there have been in the year 1975; and what proposals he has for reduction of staff in the Crown Office in the year 1976.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The staff of the Crown Office increased by five in 1975. Three of these were attributable to the assumption of responsibility for prosecution in the district courts. The other two were law apprentices. I am considering what reductions in manpower needs may flow from the Government's policy on reducing planned future public expenditure.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am delighted to know that the Crown Office is leading the Government's policy in reducing the planned number of public servants, and the associated expense, but will the Lord Advocate assure us that he has been able to attract a sufficient number of qualified staff to undertake the duties of prosecution under the District Courts (Scotland) Act?

The Lord Advocate: It would be wrong to suggest that it is an easy task to get suitably qualified persons, but I am satisfied that we are making reasonable progress, in view of the ultimate target date of 16th May 1976.

Mr. Sillars: What sort of moneys are involved for the people doing this work in the district courts?

The Lord Advocate: I should require notice of that question, but I think that a recent parliamentary answer provided some information on those lines.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHERIFF COURT, GLASGOW

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate when he last visited the Sheriff Court in Glasgow.

The Lord Advocate: I last visited the Sheriff Court in Glasgow on 24th February 1975.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Lord Advocate aware that solicitors have represented to me that the conditions in Glasgow Sheriff Court are deplorable and that, in addition, it is quite unsuitable for coping with the substantial increase in criminal prosecutions?
Further, does the Lord Advocate agree that witnesses for both defence and prosecution have had to be accommodated in one room at the sheriff court, and that in the view of Glasgow solicitors this tends to interfere with the course of justice?

The Lord Advocate: I am aware that the accommodation in Glasgow Sheriff Court leaves a great deal to be desired.
As to the difficulty about witnesses, I am bound to say that the procurator fiscal and the staff of the sheriff court do their best to ensure that witnesses appearing on opposite sides in the same case are accommodated in different places. Sometimes mistakes may occur. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case to bring to my notice I shall be glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACULTY OF ADVOCATES

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Faculty of Advocates.

The Lord Advocate: I have no plans at present for a meeting with the Faculty of Advocates.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the recent statement by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, when referring to the proposals for devolution in the Government's White Paper, that the concept of a legislative Assembly being constitutionally subordinate to one Minister, namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is offensive to the democratic principles that were established in both Scotland and England even before the Treaty of Union?

The Lord Advocate: I understand the point that the Dean of the Faculty made, but I think that the learned Dean is under a misconception as to the constitutional proposal contained in the White Paper.


The White Paper proposes that in any exercise, on behalf of the Government, of the limited power that the Secretary of State has to remit legislative and executive matters, the Secretary of State requires the positive agreement of Parliament. That can be seen by reading paragraphs 59 and 73 of the White Paper. Accordingly, it is wrong to suggest that the subordination of the Assembly would be other than truly parliamentary.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned the letter from the Dean, perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying that during the devolution debate I may have unwittingly given the impression that three of the four representations to which I was then referring had positively endorsed the White Paper concerning the question of law enforcement. That is incorrect. What I sought to convey was that only one of the representations—that of the Law Society—had taken issue on this point.

Mr. Fairbairn: Since the opinion expressed in the Dean of the Faculty's letter was not his personal opinion, but was given on behalf of members of the Faculty of Advocates, with whom he consulted, does the Lord Advocate not think that it is very unsatisfactory that under the privilege of this House he should either criticise the judgment of the Dean, who is a distinguished silk, or try to make the excuse that the White Paper is so clear that so distinguished a man could not be misled by it?

The Lord Advocate: I hope that nothing I said about the learned Dean's letter suggested that I was in any way critical of his good faith in writing what he did, but I think it would be wrong to suggest that the letter that was sent to the Government contained the concluded views of the Faculty of Advocates. The Dean made it perfectly clear that it was a letter written by him after consultation with members of the Faculty.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AFFAIRS (SCOTLAND)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate if he will implement the recommendation of the Law Society of Scotland, that a Ministry of Justice be established in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: All the recommendations made by the Law Society of

Scotland in its memorandum on devolution will be carefully considered. The recommendation referred to in the Question is one of particular interest. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, what the Law Society is proposing is that a Department of Legal Affairs should be set up under a Minister who would be a member of the Scottish Executive and responsible to the Scottish Assembly. In the Government's view, the decision whether or not to implement this proposal will fall properly to the scottish Administration, and accordingly no question of implementation by Her Majesty's Government can arise.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the Lord Advocate for his reply. Is he aware that the Law Commission of Scotland has already recommended that a Ministry of Justice or Department of Legal Affairs should be established in Scotland in order to help harmonise Scots law with EEC law, and will he give this proposal full consideration in due course?

The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Lord Advocate accept that one of the advantages of setting up a Ministry of Justice in Scotland should be that there would be more adequate machinery to allay public anxiety in cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice?
Has the Lord Advocate studied the book by my constituent, Mr. Kennedy, on the case of Patrick Meehan, about which there is now great anxiety, and will he now agree to an inquiry into that case?

The Lord Advocate: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman, who should know better, has combined these two questions. I do not propose to answer the latter question, because it is not one for me.
Concerning the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I should have thought that it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with the present arrangements for the administration of justice in Scotland.

Mr. Fairbairn: It may have been wrong for the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to raise the matter, but perhaps I may ask the


Lord Advocate this question: if it is his view, as he has stated, that Patrick Meehan was guilty of the offence of which he was found guilty, why does he not prosecute Ian Waddell, who, without question, is attempting to pervert the course of justice by making false claims?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman has already asked me a Question to that effect, which I have answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNSEL

Mr. Grimond: asked the Lord Advocate whether the submission to the Monopolies Commission about the necessity of senior and junior counsel includes Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir. Reference of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was made by the Director of Fair Trading to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under Sections 47 (1) and (2) and 50(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

Mr. Grimond: In thanking the Lord Advocate for his answer, may I add that I am also aware that advocates in Scotland are not nearly as expensive as are barristers in England—although I may be in some trouble over suggesting that?
Does the Lord Advocate not agree that it is a pity that the Scottish Bar did not set up its own inquiry into this matter and, indeed, into the question whether it is necessary in England and in Scotland to have so many layers of lawyers?

The Lord Advocate: I note what the right hon. Gentleman said, but he is perhaps not aware, for example, that the Faculty of Advocates no longer rigidly insists on the two-counsel rule in criminal trials.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Lord Advocate advise the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—who is, I believe, a barrister of the Middle Temple—that when he chooses to make pronouncements on the legal profession throughout the United Kingdom he should acquaint himself with differences in policy and practice as betweeen Scotland and England?

The Lord Advocate: I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) might bring himself a little more up to date.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to an investigation by a Royal Commission into legal practice in both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, in order to deal with the allegations of many people that both Scottish and English lawyers make a number of extortionate claims on legal aid systems?

The Lord Advocate: Without agreeing with my hon. Friend's final comment, I note his desire for a Royal Commission on these matters.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, I will now make a further statement about civil aviation policy.
Last July, following my review of civil aviation policy, I told the House that I had concluded it was no longer in the interests of our aviation industry or the economy generally to allow competition between British airlines on long-haul scheduled routes. Accordingly it would in future be our general policy not to allow more than one British airline to be licensed on any given long-haul route. Instead British Airways and British Caledonian Airways would have separate spheres of interest for their long-haul scheduled services.
Since my last statement there has been a series of detailed discussions between BA, BCAL, the Civil Aviation Authority and myself about how the airlines' existing route networks could best be adjusted so as to consolidate their respective spheres of interest. I have now decided that in Africa, where BA and BCAL at present operate competing services, East Africa and the Seychelles should in future be in BA's sphere of interest and Central Africa, including Zambia, in BCAL's. This exchange should enable both airlines to achieve considerable cost savings through deploying their resources more effectively.
Outside Africa, BCAL will give up the licences to operate scheduled services to New York, Los Angeles, Boston,


Toronto and Singapore via Bahrain, which it holds but is not at present exercising. It will also end the exempt charter service it operates to Singapore. However, it will retain the right to serve Atlanta and Houston—a route for which BA does not hold a licence—and will be the sole British airline to operate this new route when it becomes available. In addition, BCAL's sphere of interest in South America will be extended and it will take over services to Venezuela, Colombia and Peru from BA.
In making this rearrangement of routes, my objectives have been, first, to reinforce the competitive strength of British airlines in the fierce international environment in which they operate; secondly, to arrive at a result which is as fair as possible to both airlines; thirdly, to safeguard employment in the airline industry; and finally, to produce a settlement that would last for a substantial period ahead.
I believe that the decisions I have taken go a long way towards meeting these objectives. BA and BCAL will now be free to concentrate on meeting the challenge from their real rivals, the foreign carriers. BA will be able to plan the development of its services on major routes throughout the world free from the uncertainties of "double designation" licensing. Similarly, BCAL will have scope in South America, West and Central Africa and on the new Atlanta-Houston route for future expansion of its long-haul services. As regards the third objective, I am satisfied that no redundancies will result from the rearrangement of routes, and, indeed, that the employment prospects for both airlines in the longer term should be improved. Finally, the new policy will, I hope, give that stability in regulating the airline industry which is essential for effective long-term planning.
I have given further consideration to the proposed Laker Skytrain service, but I remain convinced that in the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market for the foreseeable future Sky-train would generate relatively little new traffic. It would, however, add excess capacity and would do substantial damage to BA's existing services. Moreover, having regard to the existing facilities that are available for cheap travel, it would confer no really worthwhile benefits to

the consumer. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]
The CAA, while sharing my view that conditions are still not suitable for Sky-train, would prefer the licence and designation to be kept in being and, more generally, that wider discretion should be left to the licensing system in the control of long-haul scheduled services. However, I see considerable disadvantage in prolonging the present uncertainty and have accordingly told Laker Airways that its designation will be withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am confident that the airline will continue to build up its already extensive charter business, particularly with North America, and my Department will continue to support it in this.
The position of the other independent airlines will on balance be unchanged by the policy changes I am making. I believe that they will continue to make an important contribution to our civil aviation effort.
The decisions I have announced today, and my proposals for new policy guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority, are set out in more detail in a White Paper, copies of which are now available in the Vote Office. I hope that we shall shortly be able to debate the proposed new guidance, which will require the approval of Parliament before it comes into effect.

Mr. Higgins: The Secretary of State will appreciate that this is a highly complex and important set of proposals which is not easily dealt with by question and answer. Will he indicate whether a Bill or a Statutory Instrument will be required? We welcome his assurance that there will be a debate, but we would not regard a debate of, say, one and a half hours as adequate for a matter as important as this.
On the broad question of the relationship between British Caledonian and British Airways, we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the second force concept, but what is now necessary is a framework within which the airlines can undertake investment particularly in broad-bodied aircraft. We shall need to study carefully the right hon. Gentleman's specific proposals for routes, but we certainly agree with him on the need for a period of stability in which the second force concept can be allowed to develop.
We are concerned that the Secretary of State has given the Civil Aviation Authority authority in these matters. In the past, as in the present, he has given it guidance, but he is now retaining, in effect, a two-tier system. That gives particular cause for concern over his decision about Laker Airways. That concern will be felt in all parts of the House. I believe that this is not a party matter. We are unhappy that the right hon. Gentleman's dogmatic determination to end dual designation outside Europe should be operated in such a way as to inhibit the enterprise of Laker Airways. The potential benefits which we believe would accrue to the consumer will thereby be lost.
The right hon. Gentleman will fully understand that there is great concern about this matter, and I hope that he has not ruled out the possibility of further discussions about it. Did he reach his decision on the basis of figures agreed with Laker Airways? If not, will he give an assurance that he will publish his own figures and those of Laker Airways so that the House may take a view on this important issue?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to end uncertainty. If the CAA believes that the licensing and designation of Laker Airways should continue, and if Laker Airways is also taking the same view, who is worried about the uncertainty?

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said that the White Paper was now available in the Vote Office. I believe that it is there, but the Vote Office will not release it because it says there have been no instructions to that effect.

Mr. Speaker: If I am able to give long-distance instructions, I shall do so at once. Perhaps someone will see that the document is available.

Mr. Shore: Of course I accept that a document of this kind is complex and detailed. That is why I was a little alarmed to hear that the White Paper was not immediately to hand. It should be. It is certainly not my intention, with the co-operation of the Leader of the House, that this matter should be dealt with in a one and a half hours' debate. I am not proposing legislation, but I am

proposing the proper affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that that will be coupled with a substantial and proper debate on all the wide ramifications of these proposals.
Second, on BA and BCAL, I note what the hon. Gentleman said and I accept that he is right to come back to this matter when he has seen in greater detail the material in the White Paper. But I am very glad that he has stressed what has been very much in my mind—the need for British aviation as a whole to have as long a period of stability as possible. It needs to be spared the constant threat of change if it is to plan for the future.
Third, on the Skytrain proposal, I understand that hon. Members are unhappy about that. Indeed, I should have been very surprised if I had not heard the kind of noises that I did when I made my statement. There is, however, a case which will have to be put and I shall be only too pleased to do so at the right time. The difficulty with figures—I shall produce all the figures I can—is that a dozen or more assumptions must be fed in to give any meaningful result as to the probable effects of Sky-train. Those assumptions are the critical things that one has to consider before reaching a conclusion.
I have put to the House the points on which the CAA differed from me—I have made no attempt to conceal them—but they are a relatively narrow area and beyond that there is a substantial measure of agreement.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to protect the blue riband transatlantic routes of British Airways will meet with a warm welcome in all fair-minded sections of the House? Will he also bear in mind, however, that there is still a need to look to an even cheaper form of transport than has so far been possible by the main transatlantic carriers? Therefore, will he carry the ball onward from the imperfectly-thought-out Laker idea to see what might be done towards encouraging British Airways to encourage a third-tier form of service?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for virtually everyone on this side, and, I hope, far more broadly, in what he said about preserving for BA, which is our flag carrier, these important


Atlantic routes. Anyone who thinks that there is not already competition on these routes needs his head examining. It is the toughest of all the air service markets.
As for innovation, one thing that we must take into account is that in the three or four years since the Skytrain proposal was made a whole series of innovations has been introduced by, among others, British Airways, including, of course, far cheaper charter and APEX forms of flight across the North Atlantic. The whole price differential which at one stage was so markedly favourable to Skytrain has now been enormously eroded and in some cases totally closed.

Mr. David Steel: Nevertheless, does not the Secretary of State accept that the public will be dismayed that he has proved too conservative a Minister to try the innovation of Skytrain? On the wider and more important parts of the review, does he accept that both major airlines have been messed about over the past six years in an atmosphere of total uncertainty between Governments? If, as his statement suggests, he will produce a settlement which will last for a substantial period, is that not the most important outcome? Would he not agree that what we require now is a real opportunity for both British Airways and British Caledonian to be able to use the divisions that he has created for them, and for a long period of stability ahead?

Mr. Shore: I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for and the possibility of getting a period of stability, because the time scale in which this industry operates is bound to be a long one. I hope that that is understood everywhere. As for his first comment about my being too conservative, hon. Members on both sides do not really seem to have taken account of the weight and scale of the proposed innovation. This is not just a fly to be brushed aside.
At the moment, British Airways carry on the New York run about one-third of a million passengers a year. We estimate—I think it is a reasonable estimate—that if a British Skytrain went into service an American Skytrain would come in as part of the Americans' complementary service on the same route. Those together would have a capacity greatly in excess of the whole of British Airways'

present passenger numbers to New York. That cannot be dismissed as a light matter.

Mr. Conlan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told us that there has been lengthy discussion with the airlines themselves and with the CAA. What proportion of the package that he has announced has been agreed with the airlines and what proportion is being imposed upon them against their will?

Mr. Shore: It may not surprise my hon. Friend to learn that both the main airlines, BA and BCAL, would have liked more than I have felt able to offer, but I think that both would agree that this is a tolerable and not unfair settlement. But they must speak for themselves.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the idea of a debate, since many of us are extremely disturbed by the implications of the policy that he has announced today. Would he accept that many people would like to see more competition for British Airways in view of its mean and spiteful attitude towards the competition provided by BCAL within the United Kingdom, as exemplified in its document of 6th February?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned routes held by BCAL but not operated. Are any of them routes for which it has received licences which have not been confirmed? As for Skytrain, does he not take into account the advantage which might accrue with the ordering of new machines and Rolls-Royce engines if the route went into operation?

Mr. Shore: Many of these matters will come out better in debate, but on the last point the hon. Gentleman must accept that the somewhat ambitious proposal for a new Rolls-Royce-engined version of the DC10 could not possibly come into being as a result of even the most ambitious of Laker Airways' activities. It would need the backing, as we all know, of a major carrier. So we must put that on one side. As for the question of routes in general, that will be a matter, within the terms of the new policy guidelines, for the CAA to examine in the usual way.
There is no lack of competition on domestic routes. I am not sure that the


hon. Gentleman is voicing the interests that he seeks to protect. I do not think that BCAL would welcome more competition on domestic routes, particularly to Scotland.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has it not occurred to the Secretary of State that, with the falling standard of living in this country, it is likely that the number of people who wish to use a Skytrain service because they cannot afford the cheapest scheduled services is increasing rather than decreasing and that, therefore, it would significantly increase the total air travelling public rather than merely redistribute it?

Mr. Shore: That is just the hon. Member's hope—not that our standard of living is falling, I hasten to add, but that more people would be attracted if this form of reduced price service were introduced. I repeat that there are already a number of very reduced charges for transatlantic travel, both in terms of APEX scheduled flights and in terms of special charters.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that this confirmation of the mixed economy and the endorsement of the second force goes very much against the policy commitment of this party and the assurance by the last Conservative Government that no more routes would be transferred from British Airways to British Caledonian? Nevertheless, will he recognise that some of us on this side accept that Skytrain would interrupt and make uneasy the present fares stability that we have on the North Atlantic and that we recognise that his decision at least preserves continuity of employment at Gatwick?
But when shall we come to the end of this process of parcelling up the world between British Airways and British Caledonian? Surely, if British Caledonian cannot survive after this lot, it should not be allowed to do so.

Mr. Shore: I think this new White Paper and these new proposals offer the kind of stability which the earlier White Paper did not offer, and I hope that it has a very good chance of sticking.
I am aware that at the time in 1971—entirely accept that it was the right thing to say—we on this side of the House said it was entirely wrong that the

West African route should be taken from British Airways without compensation and given as a dowry on which to launch a dual designation policy. That was as much as we said. I have to consider what now to do with what has already been given, in the terms of the 1971 transfer of routes, in applying dual designation routes which BCAL has acquired in the last four years. I have tried to reach a balance which is, I hope, not unfair to both airlines and, above all, which avoids what would otherwise produce a great deal of unemployment.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of the legislative process to which the Secretary of State referred and the uncertainty, until the whole operation is carried out, that his statement today will create, can he give an estimate of the date of the change-over of these routes? Can he say what effects, upwards or downwards, his decisions are likely to have on the staff of BCAL and BA respectively? Is he satisfied that the South American routes given to British Caledonian are profitable without access to the lucrative East Caribbean?

Mr. Shore: I am anxious to end uncertainty as soon as possible. Therefore, a great deal depends upon how quickly the House can have an opportunity of considering these proposals and reaching a decision. If the House consents, as I hone it will, the major transfers which I have outlined in Africa and in Singapore can have effect, with the agreement of both airlines, by 1st April, which I am sure will be of great benefit to all concerned. The Latin American routes can be dealt with a little later on but, I would hope, well before the end of this year.

Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these proposals will contribute to an improvement in British air services throughout Europe? Will they raise demand for civil aircraft and thus improve the general position of the aircraft industry?

Mr. Shore: It is very difficult to say what will be the effect of these proposals, on traffic in Europe. Basically, we are not making any substantial change in the situation on the short-haul routes. The major part of the policy statement is concerned with the short-haul scheduled services. I am afraid that I cannot give


a judgment on my hon. Friend's question.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall allow one more question on this matter. There is a lot more business to come before the House.

Mr. Warren: Will the Secretary of State confirm that yesterday he told Mr. Laker that the designation of Skytrain would not be withdrawn until the proposals had been approved by both Houses of Parliament? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's decision on Skytrain, by its failure to recognise, encourage and reward personal enterprise and innovation, sum up all that is wrong between the Government and the people of this country?

Mr. Shore: I am in favour, as I think we all are, of encouraging private enterprise and initiative in a large number of areas, but in this sphere of air services I think we all understand that it is very easy, by simply plundering a particularly good route and giving it to a certain operator who has no special responsibility, to make a killing for one airline on one particular route. We therefore have to be sensible about it. There is

the analogy, to which hon. Members often refer, that it is easy enough to put on a private bus service from Marble Arch to Westminster and make it pay, but one knows very well that this will be done only at the expense of London Transport.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about talks with Mr. Laker. Of course, any proposal that I make to the House in the form of a White Paper is dependent upon the approval of the House before such a proposal comes into operation.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, unless there is objection I propose to put the Question on these three motions together.

Ordered,

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Edible Fats) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Milk (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dormand.]

SHOPS (AMENDMENT)

3.55 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shops Acts 1950 to 1965.
I think that most of us in this House have the feeling from time to time that perhaps we are churning out too much legislation. Therefore, at the outset I should like to say that the purpose of my Bill is to limit the operation of legislation and not to extend it.
A law in this country has to fulfil two requirements. First, there must be a demand for it. I have received on this matter a greater amount of correspondence and petitions, for which I have not asked, than on any other subject since I have been a Member of the House. Second, the law must be understandable and logical.
Let us see how the Shops Acts stand up to those requirements. I emphasise that I am talking only about the closing hours of shops on weekdays and not about trading on Sundays. Are the Shops Acts needed? Of course they are. We all agree on that. There are immense areas of legislation covering the treatment of employees and the quality and standard of service. There is no argument about that. As to whether the provisions of the Shops Acts relating to closing hours are intelligible and understandable, the answer must be "No". I guess that there is not one Member of the House who fully understands the law relating to the Shops Acts. I freely admit that until I started inquiries into the intricacies of my proposals I did not understand them.
The basic law is that shops should shut at 8 p.m. on weekdays and at 9 p.m. on one day a week, and that there should be an early closing day at 1 o'clock on one day a week. There are, however, exceptions. One has to look at the Sunday regulations to see how many anomalies and stupidities there are. To deal with the ordinary anomalies first, strangely enough the Shops Acts deal with the closing but not with the opening of shops. A shop is forced to close at 9 p.m. but, presumably, may open at one minute past midnight and trade all night without breaking the law.
There are strange requirements about food. One may go into a shop and eat a sausage roll if it is hot, but if it is cold and one takes it out of the shop the law has been broken. One may eat cooked meats in a shop at any time of the evening, but one may not eat half-cooked meat unless it happens to be partly-cooked tripe. One may buy tobacco, sweets and ice-cream provided that it is from a shop within the precincts of a theatre and provided that it is sold to a theatre audience. But if anybody comes off the street into the shop to buy, it is my belief that such a person is acting in contravention of the law.
Newspapers may be bought from approved stations. I wonder whether Sir Richard Marsh could tell us what is not an approved station. Petrol may be sold for the benefit of cars, cycles and aircraft, as long as the petrol station opens for that purpose and closes as soon as the car, cycle or aeroplane has been served.
I believe I am right in saying that a shop may stay open to victual a ship on a Sunday. Probably the greatest nonsense of all is the fact that on a Sunday it is legal to sell a Wimpy and it is in order to sell Chinese food, but it is illegal to sell fish and chips. Therefore, the law is in a muddle, lacks clarity and should not be applied in any place where it is not absolutely necessary.
Shops are open and will remain open tonight all over London. They will be breaking the law, not because they are open but because they happen to be selling, perhaps, baked beans with a loaf of bread. It is all right to sell a loaf of bread, but when a tin of baked beans is sold with it the shop steps outside the law.
My Bill proposes to exclude from the early closing provisions on weekdays shops which are—I emphasise these words—entirely and exclusively operated by the owners. The problem arises: who are the owners? I believe that an owner is someone who owns 25 per cent. or more of the business. That percentage could be 33 per cent., 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. It depends on the definition of "small shop". The moment a shop employs someone, it will automatically fall outside the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney), who, I believe, will oppose


the Bill—I make no complaint about that—sent round a "whip", which was given to me by one of his hon. Friends, in which he makes two statements, with which I must quarrel. First, he said that my proposals would exclude from the Shops Acts all shops operated by the owner or his family. The Bill does not exclude all shops from the Shops Acts or even small shops from those Acts; it excludes them from only one part of the Shops Acts, namely, Part I—not even Part IV.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is a threat to all shop workers. The greater threat to the employment of shop workers is the fact that Tesco and, dare I say, the Co-op have turned their grocery departments into self-service departments. That is a greater threat than any which could arise from the small corner shop. If I believed that the Bill posed a threat to the welfare of shop workers, I should not ask the House to accept the motion.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torrey: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has outlined the main objections to the Bill and some of the anomalies in the existing Shops Acts. For many years I worked in a shop and then for a considerable time I was a full-time officer of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am well aware of the anomalies, and it is possible that, if the House could find the time, the Shops Acts need to be amended. However, the hon. Gentleman wants to amend them to allow one section of shop employers or owners to operate differently from the rest. As the hon. Gentleman said, the owner-occupier need only employ his family, and this would add still greater confusion to the already confusing Shops Acts.
At present, Shops Acts inspectors have the unenviable task of trying to enforce the law. Although I have not consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I am sure he would agree that to expect an inspector to know whether Aunt Mary was really Aunt Mary or an employee would tax the inspector even more.

Why do USDAW and I say that the Bill will be a threat to shop workers simply because for a great number of years they have been the Cinderella of industry? Shop workers work long, unsocial hours. Is it feasible to expect large firms in the High Street—and today retailing is a highly complex and competitive business, as all hon. Members recognise—which have large sums of money invested in their large retail organisations to stand aside while owner-occupied businesses, which employ members of the family, are allowed to open whenever they like?

There is only so much cake. However much we subdivide that cake, we shall cause economic stress. If a shop opens for 12 hours instead of eight hours shop workers will have to work a shift system, which I doubt would operate effectively, and there would be more to pay. Who pays in the end? The more hours a shop stays open, the more expenses there are. Those costs are added to the cost of the article.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury mentioned the hours during which shops are already allowed to open. He said that they could open until 8 o'clock every night and 9 o'clock on a late night. Is not that reasonable? Are we not pandering to the unreasonable if we suggest that someone may wish to buy a pound a sugar or a packet of cigarettes at 8.5 p.m. or 9.5 p.m.? At present, shop opening hours are quite reasonable. Moreover, the mass of shops do not stay open even as long as the hours permitted under the Acts. Many shops shut at 5.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. If they wish to stay open later, the Acts cover them.

I sincerely hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will follow me into the Lobby and vote against the Bill, because it is a thoroughly bad Bill economically and for shop workers.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 159.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[4.09 p.m.


Baker, Kenneth
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Biggs-Davison, John


Banks, Robert
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Blaker, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bottomley, Peter




Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hannam, John
Penhaligon, David


Bradford, Rev Robert
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hayhoe, Barney
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brotherton, Michael
Higgins, Terence L.
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Raison, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hooson, Emlyn
Rathbone, Tim


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Burden, F. A.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Carson, John
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cockcroft, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cordle, John H.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Tim


Corrie, John
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Crawford, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Doig, Peter
Luce, Richard
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Durant, Tony
McCusker, H.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Elliott, Sir William
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, George


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Freud, Clement
Molyneaux, James
Wall, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Watt, Hamish


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wells, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mudd, David
Welsh, Andrew


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Nelson, Anthony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Griffiths, Eldon
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hon George


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally



Grylls, Michael
Page, John (Harrow W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pardoe, John
Sir John Langford-Holt and


Hampson, Dr Keith
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Robert Corbett.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boardman, H.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Judd, Frank


Buchanan, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kaufman, Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kinnock, Neil


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamborn, Harry


Ciemitson, Ivor
George, Bruce
Lamond, James


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ginsburg, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bryan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Graham, Ted
Litterick, Tom


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loyden, Eddie


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hardy, Peter
Luard, Evan


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Harper, Joseph
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Cryer, Bob
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hart. Rt Hon Judith
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Delargy, Hugh
Hooley, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Dempsey, James
Horam, John
Madden, Max


Dormand, J. D.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mahon, Simon


Duffy, A. E. P.
Huckfield, Les
Mallalieu, J. P. W.







Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Price, William (Rugby)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walden Brian (B'ham. L'dyw'd)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Walker. Terry (Kingswood)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ward, Michael


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Watkinson, John


Moonman, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshawe)
Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Newens, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Noble, Mike
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Stoddart, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orbach, Maurice
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Owen, Dr David
Stott, Roger
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Padley, Walter
Swain, Thomas
Woodall, Alec


Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Pavitt, Laurie
Tomlinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Sydney Tierney and


Perry, Ernest
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Thomas Torney.


Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

MOTOR INDUSTRY

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: I beg to move,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
I should begin by apologising for my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is at present drawing sick pay and is unfortunately unable to be with us for the debate.
I notice that on the Order Paper today the title of the motion has become
State Investment in the Motor Industry".
That is not actually the motion that we originally put down, although I well understand why, in the Business Statement by the Leader of the House, it was amended, and it has been yet further amended now. The title of the motion that we submitted was
The Failure of the Government to observe their Guidelines in respect of State Investment in the Motor Industry.
It may have been possible for hon. Members to deduce that from the shortened version, and one understands the embarrassment of the Government and their desire to present a more abbreviated version.
We censure the Secretary of State and the Government for their vast incompetence over the handling of this whole matter. Their incompetence is shown in their delay, in the whole handling of their industrial strategy, particularly towards the motor industry, and in their utter failure to practise what they have preached in this direction.
I deal first with the question of delay. It may be interesting for hon. Members to recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this:
I hope in the next few weeks another area of uncertainty will also be removed as the Government defines its industrial strategy more precisely, setting out the criteria which will govern its aid to industry, describing its priorities for economic growth, and clarifying the

rôle of Planning Agreements and the National Enterprise Board.
The Chancellor said that on 6th June of last year and he said that he would do those things within the next few weeks.
What have we had? We have had the definition of industrial strategy, but we did not get it in "the next few weeks". We had to wait until 5th November for the Chequers meeting before we got it.
We were also promised within the next few weeks from 6th June the criteria for governing aid to industry. Through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), we at last extracted those criteria last month—mid-January.
What about the clarification of the rôle of the National Enterprise Board which was supposed to be given within the next few weeks from 6th June? That is still not available. Yet the Minister of State said that it would be coming very soon. He has been saying that endlessly, month after month. In view of the present disputes about the relationship of the National Enterprise Board and Rolls-Royce, we can guess why the Government are still unable to produce this.
That is our indictment about the delay. The Chancellor recognised in June the need for these documents to be available early, and yet two of them have only just arrived and one is still not available.
Then we censure the Government for their failure to practise what they preach. Let us see what they are now preaching. In November they gave us their White Paper "An Approach to Industrial Strategy". This document includes some very important statements—for example:
Any major increases in productivity will require not only more investment better directed, but also improvements in working methods, including the reduction of overmanning and restrictive practices, and by transfer of workers into expanding sectors with a promising future.
That is the Government's belief in their industrial strategy. They set out their philosophy of backing winners. They categorise such industries as follows:
industries which…are intrinsically likely to be successful; industries which…have the potential for success if the appropriate action is taken; and industries…whose performance is most important to the rest of industry.
The Government deal also with the question of how they would handle


individual companies where rescue operations are needed. They say:
In deciding whether individual companies merit support the Government will have regard to the criteria in NEDC 75/67 including the need to ensure that the company concerned is likely to be viable in the longer term.
That reference to NEDC 75/67 may come as a surprise to hon. Members who saw only the White Paper "An Approach to Industrial Strategy". If hon. Members went to the Library on the day of the Chequers meeting and actually got the first copies that were issued, which were in Roneo'd form, they would find that sentence included. Strangely enough, that sentence had disappeared in the White Paper. But NEDC 75/67 set out the criteria for investment under the Industry Act and the Government were very embarrassed at that stage at the suggestion that those criteria and the action that subsequently followed at Chrysler were related in any way.
That document states the criteria for assistance very clearly:
By and large, profitability and return on capital, measured in financial terms, remain the best prima facie indicator of an industry's or company's efficiency in using resources and in giving consumer satisfaction…
It goes on to talk about viability and it says this:
An assessment of viability is a matter of facts, figures and commercial judgment, in which wider economic and social factors have no part to play.
This is the Government's own document which was issued in November. It goes on to talk about one or two possible exceptional cases and it says:
It should be exceptional for a firm to be regarded as potentially viable in the ordinary sense if forecasts based on reasonable assumptions do not show profits and positive cash flow within three years.
It goes on in paragraph 19 to say:
if we are to break through the balance of payments contraints and thus achieve more freedom for manoeuvre for the management of the economy, more and not less emphasis will be required on competitiveness in home and export markets. Failure to achieve this would in the end be the enemy of job security.
The document goes on in paragraph 27 to talk about the merits of a receivership or a liquidation. It says:
A receivership or a liquidation does not necessarily involve the complete cessation of a company's activities…The resources of manpower, premises and equipment of involvent businesses are in many cases taken up in

whole or in part by other enterprises expanding or starting up.
Those are the Government's own words in the document. They say:
This, rather than the propping up of failed enterprises, is and should remain the principal contribution of the Industry Act…
It goes on to say:
In exceptional cases…there must be a strong presumption that it must be possible to reconstruct the enterprise on a viable basis.
These are the preachings of the Government making clear their strategy and making clear also, in yet another document which they have produced—the White Paper entitled "The British Motor Vehicle Industry"—the Government's approach to the car industry. The most important point is in paragraph 19. The first item is:
encouraging the fundamental changes in attitude throughout the industry required for the necessary improvements in productivity, quality continuity of production and industrial relations.
That is what the Government believe. We accept their papers. We think that they contain the beginnings of a commonsense policy a great deal of which we could support. It is against that background that we look to see how the Government handle individual situations, because I know that nobody in the House is impressed merely by words or statements. They judge people by actions, and we are entitled to judge the Government accordingly.
In the case of British Leyland every observer—whether it be the Select Committee, the CPRS, the Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State—has said that what is needed above anything is a total change of attitude in the relationship between management and men within those plants, that we must get across to people within the whole organisation that they are not guaranteed jobs for life regardless of effort or commitment, but that there must be a real understanding of the responsibility that everybody in the organisation carries for the success of its activities.
The Prime Minister underlined this very clearly. In his original statement on 24th April last year he emphasised the importance of this and emphasised that there was no question of further funds being available to British Leyland unless objectives were achieved. He


promised that there would be very close monitoring. He promised a full rôle for Government and the National Enterprise Board in observing and monitoring the plans of the British Leyland board.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed most of all is a shift in emphasis away from the production of motor cars, where there is vast over-capacity, to commercial vehicles, where there is vast under-production?

Mr. King: The first priority is to make efficiently and competitively whatever one is making at present and where one has markets at present. This is the first and overriding objective. At present, I do not think it is a choice between one and the other. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to see both succeed. At this stage we must ensure that what we are doing is done competitively in world terms and is done effectively.
The Prime Minister made clear the importance of monitoring and said that there was no question of more funds being available unless targets were achieved. The Select Committee said in its Report:
We do not believe that withholding the next tranche of money for British Leyland is a practical possibility. The threat of sanction which cannot be used is no threat.
A phrase used in the Government's latest comments on the motor industry is that time is fast running out, but what sense of urgency do we find in the Government's approach to the problem? In British Leyland is there the total change of attitude which everyone has recognised is necessary? It has been pointed out that in the six months following the Government's action there were more strikes at British Leyland than in the previous six months.
Next week will mark the first anniversary of Lord Ryder's appointment as chairman of the organising committee of the National Enterprise Board. The Prime Minister told Parliament in April that it would be the responsibility of the Board to monitor British Leyland, but the only thing we have seen is unilateral action by the British Leyland board, which has had to stop further capital investment because losses have risen so steeply, made even worse by stoppages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) asked the Minister of State recently what was happening about targets and attempts to monitor British Leyland. He asked the Minister to define the first of the targets of achievement and the date by which it would have to be met. The Minister told him:
The first of those targets will have to be met by the middle of this year, when there will have to be a review point for the next injection of finance. We shall have to get much nearer that period before we decide how matters are progressing.
What are the Government's targets and objectives? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked:
Have not the Government heard of management by objectives?" [Official Report, 26th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 8–9.]
Would it not be helpful for the work force and management to be told at least a week before targets have to be met what the objectives are?
We are not talking about 25p in the piggy bank. The next tranche is £100 million, to be put into the company in June this year, and yet we have no idea what targets the Government and the National Enterprise Board require British Leyland to reach by that time. Surely, when looking for a change of attitude and a real commitment, the sensible and obvious thing to do is to tell people what the targets are and to give them an honest chance to achieve them.

Mr. John Page: Will it be necessary for British Leyland to state exactly to what use the money will be put, or can it be used for capital investment and wages?

Mr. King: I cannot answer that question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise the matter with the Secretary of State. At present there is no plan and no understanding of what is happening. There is still a row between the Secretary of State's Department and Lord Ryder over the acquisition of shares. I am not aware that the shares have yet been transferred. There is continuing uncertainty against the background of the Government saying that time is fast running out, the background of dithering and messing about and the row between Lord Ryder and the Department on the price to be paid for the shares. Lord Ryder is


nearly celebrating his first anniversary in office, but so little has been done.
There is now the argument with Rolls-Royce which indicates yet further how little preparation has been done to establish what the rôle of the National Enterprise Board will be. There is considerable uncertainty about the situation. The arguments have been rehearsed today in the Press about the position of the Board and Rolls-Royce. There are difficulties and complications. We understand that in the past Sir Kenneth Keith had access to the Prime Minister as well as to the Secretary of State, and that Lord Ryder previously had access direct to the Prime Minister. But what is his present position? Does he have access to the Prime Minister? Is he therefore yet another person who can go behind the back of the Secretary of State to negotiate his own agreements? It would be helpful to the House to know what the position is.
I turn from the Government's total failure to implement their strategy in respect of British Leyland to the even more serious situation of Chrysler. It is relevant to the debate, because it was a post-strategy decision. The investment was made after the Chequers announcement on Government criteria. There have been Government statements about the prime need of a real prospect of viability. It is sad that nobody in the Government, with the possible but unlikely exception of the Secretary of State, actually believes that Chrysler can be viable.
Paragraph 24 of the White Paper on the motor industry stated:
The Government have already taken measures to enable British Leyland to re-establish itself on a viable and competitive basis. In the case of Chrysler UK the Government have undertaken to support a re-organised and more concentrated operation.
For Chrysler there is no mention of viability in the future. The Government cannot bring themselves to suggest in the White Paper that it should be viable. When asked about his confidence in the future of Chrysler the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 22nd December:
I am not going to express any confidence, only determination.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not my hon. Friend think that the

phrase "a more concentrated operation" is a somewhat bizarre description of moving manufacture of the Avenger 240 miles away from the place where its engines are made?

Mr. King: We must have sympathy for whoever had the job of drafting that sentence. But I understand what my hon. Friend says.
The Government's overall strategy puts viability high in the list, yet the Industrial Development Advisory Board sees no prospects of commercial success. The Government's requirement is that there should be viability within three years, but their scheme for Chrysler provides for losses over four years. The only person who dares to suggest that the business might continue is the Secretary of State. He said on 16th December:
We have the basis for a continuing operation into the 1980s".—[Official Report, 16th December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 1168.]
What is his basis for saying that?
The Secretary of State wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley saying that no studies had been done beyond 1979. He can therefore base his belief that there will be a continuing operation into the 1980s only on a personal hunch or imagination because he has admitted that no studies have been made beyond 1979 and it is expected that further losses will have to be covered by the Government.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): The hon. Gentleman is referring to correspondence I had with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about model development and future prospects for Chrysler. Although that correspondence was published, there was a great deal of information which I could not give the hon. Member for Henley because of commercial confidence and the rest. I invited the hon. Gentleman to take the matter up directly with Chrysler, and the managing director of Chrysler United Kingdom said that he was prepared to do so. That offer has not been taken up by the hon. Member for Henley. The Opposition, if they are seriously concerned, should take that offer up rather than repeat these charges, because they know that I cannot reveal the commercial confidences given to my Department.

Mr. King: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He will understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and I are somewhat heavily involved in the passage of one of the Secretary of State's more contentious Bills at the moment. We intend to follow that matter up, but it still has nothing to do with the point I am making. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to model development costs, which we understand, but his letter does not say that the matter to which I referred is confidential. It says:
No projections have been made beyond 979
How can he have confidence into the 1980s if he has not done any projections about what is to happen in the 1980s, and the only projection done so far affects years in which he expects losses to be made?
This situation reveals the total nonsense that has been made of the Government's strategy. The overriding requirement both at British Leyland and at Chrysler is for a change of attitude. Yet, for example, we have the situation at Linwood, where the whole production has been stopped by one dispute. When one takes into account the tax implication, the money involved was not worth more than a packet of fags a week to each of those involved. That dispute could have been resolved without it, but, instead, the whole of the production was stopped. I am not taking sides, but that situation is indicative. Both sides had an interest in resolving it, and it is a tragedy that all work was stopped. It is possible to have disputes without actually stopping the whole of production. There are ways in which these things can be negotiated.
That dispute arose over the moving of 50 people four miles down the road——

Mr. Norman Buchan: Half a mile.

Mr. King: —half a mile down the road—so what confidence does that give the House over the moving of a total assembly line 240 miles? What must stick in the Secretary of State's throat is that he was persuaded to agree to this course on the ground that it would save votes for Labour in Scotland. Now that

he has seen the results of the East Kil-bride by-election, he must feel that he has been misled on that score as well.
It is clear that many members of the Cabinet realise the utter folly of this situation. Hon. Members who watched Monday's television programme will know that such is the dislike of many members of the Cabinet for the strategy that they have been singing like canaries ever since to the Press. It is impossible that a programme like that could have been put together without a considerable number of direct leaks by members of the Government, and it has not escaped the notice of the House that Secretaries of State and other Ministers are prepared to sing like canaries to the Press but are not so keen on singing at all to a Select Committee of this House, where it would be more appropriate.
We believe that the new strategy is right, but if it is to carry any conviction it must be applied in difficult as well as easy cases. We believe that the Secretary of State knows the answers on this matter. He knows the danger and the damage that will be done. He knows the threat to jobs posed by failing to face the situation. Anyone who has read the CPRS report, whose figures have been underlined and quoted again by the Government, knows that if the British motor car industry does not get this change of attitude and become competitive with overseas industries, the threat is that 275,000 jobs will be lost by 1985. That is the scale of the problem and underlines the crucial importance of showing that the industrial strategy is working.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has drawn attention to the success of his accelerated investment scheme, and we pay tribute to it. He claims a multiplier effect of 6 to 1—that is, for every £1 million of public investment there is a follow-up of private invesetment of six times that amount. That means that the money spent on Chrysler could, if it had been used in other ways, have produced about £1,000 million of additional investment for the country.
The Secretary of State has said:
To improve our industrial performance available resources should go to those industries which have the soundest performance, or the best prospects. This must be the first principle of Government aid…".


It is for his betrayal of that first principle, which he himself enunciated at the conference on 30th October, that we censure him today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the Secretary of State for Industry, I remind the House that the debate is to be interrupted at Seven o'clock for opposed Private Business.

4.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): This is a very much truncated debate and I shall try to follow the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in being as brief as possible. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) cannot be with us, and I hope that he makes a quick recovery from his illness.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater has characteristically asked a lot of questions. He himself answered one which had puzzled me. Those of my hon. Friends who were present in the House for business questions last Thursday will remember the cheers from the Opposition when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that today there would be a debate on the Government's guidelines on State investment in the motor industry. But when I looked at the motion on the Order Paper today, I wondered where the guidelines had gone. Now, the motion simply refers to State investment in the motor industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government are incompetent, but the Opposition are not even competent enough to get down on the Order Paper the motion which they wanted. It is up to the Opposition to decide what motions they put down on a Supply Day.
The fact is that when it comes to discussing State aid for the motor industry under the Industry Act 1972—and that is what we are talking about; that is where a good deal of the assistance for British Leyland will come from and the aid for Chrysler—the Opposition have too much of a past to live down.
When, two weeks ago, for example, the House discussed the extension of the financial limit under Section 8 of the Act, the Opposition sought to make great play by quoting from the guidelines for Section 8 which we recently published. Those guidelines were not extracted from us—

they were volunteered. The criteria for assistance under Section 8 had been discussed within the framework of the National Economic Development Council. In any case, they were practically public on the basis of the discussions we had there.
But we could never have had a debate on such guidelines between 1972 and 1974, because the Conservative Government never published any guidelines for Section 8. It was very much more open-ended than now. When it was going through the House Mr. Christopher Chataway, then Minister for Industrial Development, turned down an amendment to insert a proviso in Clause 8, as it was, by which aid would have been forthcoming only
where there is…evidence for believing that there is a reasonable prospect of the industry to be assisted achieving viability within five years".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 13th July 1972; c. 713.]

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of misleading the House, but it is not right for him to say that these criteria, which are the heart of the new industrial strategy, were volunteered by the Government. There was a reference in the NEDC document which was expunged in the White Paper. When I asked the NEDC to give me the document, it said that it was highly confidential and could not be revealed. Only when I put down a Written Question was the information vouchsafed. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given the information to the House in the end, but it was a difficult and lengthy process, and far short of being volunteered.

Mr. Varley: I do not quibble about this matter because it is not worth it. After the NEDC meeting guidelines were mentioned at a Press briefing. If the Government had wanted to hide the criteria they could have done so, but we saw no reason why the House should not have that information. When the Industry Bill was going through the House in 1972, the then Government—and Mr. Christopher Chataway in particular—decided that there should be no published criteria. The Conservatives were far more restrictive on these matters than we have been.

Mr. Tom King: rose——

Mr. Varley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time I shall give way. I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this debate.

Mr. Tom King: I wish to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) which the Secretary of State has not answered. Why did the Government delete or expunge from the printed White Paper the sentence I quoted earlier regarding criteria?

Mr. Varley: I am at a loss to understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. We could have followed the precedent set by the Conservative Government and decided that there should be no published criteria. But we volunteered them, and it is as well that we did because everybody in the House is entitled to know.
When we examine the criteria adopted by the present Government, it is as well to trace a little of the history of the matter when Governments have considered giving assistance. I should like to quote a passage from Hansard in 1972 dealing with criteria for assistance:
…there are the difficult and sometimes controversial cases where important concerns suffer a severe financial setback… In carrying out such an assessment, regard has to be paid to the whole range of relevant economic factors. Future profitability is one, but others cannot be ignored…the employment the industry provides in relation to the future of a particular area is also very important. This must be taken into account and care taken to examine whether it makes sense to allow a sudden collapse or whether it may not be preferable to aim for a slower run-down while alternative employment opportunities are provided. A viable enterprise at a lower level of operations is frequently a possible solution, too. Other factors may also be relevant, but I wish to emphasise the need for a thorough examination of all the factors so that a proper assessment of economic prospects and potential viability over the long term is made in each such case. I do not conceal the fact that, inevitably, these assessments are very often made against great pressure of urgency, and to pretend that risks do not have to be taken would be foolish, but they may be justified to achieve the wider purposes of policy.—[Official Report, 22nd May 1972: Vol. 837. c. 1020–21.]
That is a very good explanation of the criteria and is the most fulsome and unconditional justification of Government aid that could be applied to the Chrysler situation. Those words came from the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr.

Davies), the former Secretary for Trade and Industry, in moving the Second Reading of the Industry Bill 1972 and explaining how Clause 8—now Section 8—should be used.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater has all the brass neck in the world to have the nerve to get up in this House and criticise us for providing aid under an Act whose authors explained so candidly the purpose for which they intended it. He knows better than most, since he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister, Mr. Christopher Chataway, who took the Bill through the House. It is about time that Tory Opposition Members stopped their carping and nagging and made up their minds whether they want to give the British motor industry a chance. If they had their way there would be only two volume car producers in this country and imports would be flooding in. Heaven knows, unemployment is high enough, but if Tory Opposition votes had been successful in this House in the last two years there would be hundreds of thousands more on the dole—in Oxford, Birmingham and Coventry. I emphasise "Coventry" and I hope that the point will be noted in that part of the country as well as elsewhere.
It is easy to play a completely negative role. There is plenty to criticise within the motor car industry and a good deal to put right. We see insufficient investment, inadequacies in management and difficult labour relations. We have put all the facts before the British people and to those who work in the motor industry. Indeed, information has been made available to an unprecedented extent. Therefore, I do not wish to go into sterile arguments about criteria for British industry.
We set up the Ryder team and published its report. We asked the CPRS to examine the industry in depth, and we published that report as well. The Tory Party complained bitterly that the publication of the CPRS report had been delayed. But the Conservatives did not publish any CPRS report, delayed or otherwise. I have published two such reports in the last two years.
So we are not afraid to face the harsh facts about the motor car industry. But there are other facts, too. They are facts


in which the hon. Member for Bridgwater is not interested this afternoon or which he brushes aside. I refer to facts about the achievements of the British motor car industry and to facts vindicating the House's approval of the Government's decision to invest Government money in the industry. If the Tories had had their way, there would be no British Leyland today. They would have split it up and let most of it go under. Yet British Leyland has made great progress. There have been important organisational changes, they have taken place relatively smoothly and quickly, and a new board of directors has been appointed. As the House knows, these developments were marred by the tragic death last month of Sir Ronald Edwards. At present Sir Robert Clark is able to stand in as chairman until we can appoint a successor.
The scheme for the financial reconstruction of the company became effective on 11th August last year. Following that arrangement, in early October the equity base was enlarged by £200 million, increasing the size of the Government shareholding to 95 per cent.
The company has also been pressing ahead with discussions with those who work in British Leyland about the proposals for industrial democracy and measures to improve performance. The main task must be to rebuild British Leyland and to return it to viability. That task is still before us. It is a formidable task and we have a long way to go. But there are hopeful signs.
Although the new arrangements for participation by the workers in the company's planning inevitably will take time to set up, it has now made an encouraging start with a joint declaration on the need for increased sales, productivity and production. We have hopes that this new machinery can make an important contribution to the smoother running of production in full co-operation with all concerned and that it will bring about a reduction in industrial disputes and an increase in productivity. It is true to say that morale and performance are improving.
Let me give the House some facts that should be given if we want to support the British motor car industry.
Last month British Leyland regained its position as the largest supplier of

cars to the United Kingdom with a 29 per cent. share of the market. Of course, there are variations from month to month. In September of last year it reached the record level of 39 per cent. This was followed by a period of several months during which sales reflected the depleted level of stocks. The stock of new cars is being built up to a much more acceptable level. On the truck and bus side of the business, British Leyland's share of the domestic market rose in 1975 to 30 per cent. compared with 27 per cent. in the previous year. This was achieved against a difficult background of recession and falling demand. During 1974–75 the truck and bus division made a profit of £27 million.
It is British Leyland's export performance which is most encouraging. In the financial year to the end of September 1975 the value of British Leyland's direct exports reached £589 million. In this period the truck side of the business managed to increase exports from £80 million to £142 million—an increase of over 75 per cent. More than half the output of the truck and bus division is exported. For example, Leyland National in Cumbria has an order for 450 buses from Venezuela, with good prospects of securing further orders.
Sales of cars to the American market, which everyone knows is a demanding market, have been particularly encouraging. Figures available for the year just ended show that sales were up by 30 per cent., by volume, on sales in 1974. I repeat, if Tory Members had had their way, if their votes had been carried, much of this would not have happened. Not only would we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we would have lost hundreds of millions of pounds on the balance of trade and the balance of payments.
The Government are determined not to let British Leyland go under, obviously. We want to see an improvement in performance. We want to see British Leyland thrive and prosper and fit sensibly into a market that also contains a role for Chrysler United Kingdom and allows maximum scope for Ford and Vauxhall. In 1965 the share of the United Kingdom market held by British manufacturers was about 95 per cent. It is now nearer 65 per cent. All of our firms can improve their competitiveness and their market position.
The action we have taken to assist Chrysler United Kingdom need not diminish the ability of British Leyland, Ford or Vauxhall to compete with those overseas firms which have taken so much of our domestic market over the past decade. The CPRS report stated quite clearly that productivity, quality, reliability and continuity of production need to be enormously improved. What we have lost through poor performance in the past can be regained by better performance in future.
The objectives of our assistance to Chrysler are to give the company the chance to return to profitability and to compete more effectively in the home and overseas markets. No one can be certain that the company will achieve viability within three years. No one could give that categoric guarantee. The previous Conservative Government could not give that guarantee in respect of the assistance it gave to industry through the 1972 Act. If the Opposition do not regard our criteria as a satisfactory basis for aid in 1976, the evidence I have quoted proves that they regarded it as more than satisfactory in 1972—at the time of the "Chataway undertaking". When the Opposition were in Government and had responsibility for the motor industry they did not indulge in the sniping that goes on now. They now like sniping from the sidelines.
The company forecasts small profits from 1977 onwards. Even if viability is not regained within three years, the Government consider that because of the powerful social, industrial and balance of payments arguments a longer time scale would be justified. This fits in fully not only with the criteria put forward by the right hon. Member for Knutsford when he held office but with the criteria we have recently published. We should not entirely dismiss the words of Mr. Riccardo when he wrote, and I put this in a letter to the hon. Member for Henley:
The conclusion we have reached provides renewed opportunity for the viability of Chrysler UK.
Chrysler Corporation is backing this assessment with its own resources.

Mr. Tom King: We do not want to ignore what Mr. Riccardo has to say, but the Government have a substantial stake

of public money in this company. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it might not be possible to achieve viability in three years and we ought, therefore, to be prepared to consider a longer time scale. As I understand it he has not considered a longer time scale. He has no idea whether the company will ever return to viability.

Mr. Varley: From the discussion which Chrysler United Kingdom had with the Government before agreement was reached we believe that, given an improvement in performance and harmonious industrial relations, small profits can be achieved in 1977, 1978 and 1979. Of course, there were contingencies made for losses in all those years. I cannot be certain about the future viability of this company any more than the right hon. Member for Knutsford could have had confidence about the assistance he was giving to industry. The Chrysler Corporation will not only share in the losses that Chrysler United Kingdom may incur over the next four years; it is also providing new funds and important guarantees to the Government.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater predictably raised the question of the Linwood strike. While I would like to say something about it, it is best not to do so at this stage so that I may finish my speech. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will want to say something about that.
There are other ways in which the Government have shown that they intend to work closely with both sides of industry. We want to establish a viable, substantial, internationally competitive and unsubsidised motor car industry in the 1980s. We have said that it is necessary for there to be a fundamental change of attitude throughout the industry. We have to assist with the necessary reorganisation and rationalisation to ensure that the Governments' policies and the industry's plans are understood and provide as far as possible a stable economic environment for domestic sales of motor vehicles.
I have been giving a good deal of thought as to how we can achieve this objective. As a start I have approached the major motor vehicle assemblers and leading trade unionists with a view to setting up a group to tackle these urgent


problems. I am pleased to announce that Mr. Beckett of Ford, Mr. Price of Vauxhall, Mr. Hunt of Chrysler and Mr. Park of British Leyland, and Mr. Jack Jones and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, representing the principal trade unions concerned, have agreed to take part in this group, and the first meeting will be held shortly under my chairmanship.
The group will consider initially the implementation of the White Paper on the motor industry and how work on the motor industry can be tied in with more general work between Government, management and unions on the Government's approach to industrial strategy. It will also consider other information, like the Report by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of this House, as it becomes available. I hope the group will tie in with the tripartite machinery we have set up for other industries as part of our industrial strategy. It is absolutely essential that we should give very high priority to this work in recognition of the special position of the motor industry in our economy.
This will be a short debate, but I hope I have approached the problems of the industry realistically and demonstrated that the Government approach the problem in practical, sensible terms.
Fortunately for the motor industry and the nation, the Opposition have no influence at all on this key sector of British industry. If their votes had been carried on several occasions in the last two years, the industry would now be in a state of disintegration. While they move their motions of censure, the British motor car industry, with the support of the majority in this House, is getting on with its job.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: The sympathy I felt for the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate evaporated rapidly. I have never heard such a petty, politicking, pettifogging attempt to go back over the past. The right hon. Gentleman based most of his remarks on what was happening in 1972. The industry needs a clear lead for the future and the Secretary of State spared us only half a page at the end of his speech. The reason why the industry did not need any help in 1972 was that we had a Tory Government. The Sec-

retary of State's attempt to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) fell flat on its face.
We are trying to consider the strategy that should be adopted by the Government towards the motor industry on a rather longer-term basis than was possible in the discussion on the Chrysler situation before Christmas, which was more of a tactical and short-term nature.
We have now had time to study in detail the CPRS Report and we also have the benefit of the Government's answers to the invaluable Report of our Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, whose chairman we are pleased to see here today.
The Government's policy and industrial strategy towards the motor industry has to be considered in the context of their industrial strategy as a whole. There is no particular reason to single out the motor industry, except, perhaps, its size and importance. Any differences are of degree and not of kind. But the industry is of signal importance to the West Midlands and employment prospects there.
I had hoped that the Secretary of State would amplify the Government's commitment in their White Paper on the way ahead for the motor industry, and would say what they intend to do. We have had a belated working party, which certain distinguished gentlemen have been pleased to accept invitations to join, but what is being done to carry out the Government's stated policy in the White Paper?
The White Paper sets out four objectives—first, the encouragement of fundamental changes in attitude that are necessary to improve productivity; secondly, assisting rationalisation of plant and reduction of capacity; thirdly, the development of closer relations between the Government and both sides of industry to ensure that policies are understood; and, fourthly, the creation of a stable economic environment.
The first lead we are looking for from the Government is the encouragement of the fundamental changes in attitude which all reports agree are necessary and which the Government themselves have accepted. The difficulty is that as recently as last night the Government forced through a Bill based on entrenched attitudes which are no longer applicable in


industry. The Government have not given a clear lead to the country in this respect.
This lack of leadership is depressing and unsettling, and creates uncertainty, which mitigates against both investment and the achievement of improved industrial relations. Uncertainty among the work force in the industry is one of the main factors contributing to its very unsatisfactory output and efficiency. It is very understandable when people are laid on and off, apparently at the whim of management, without, perhaps, realising the effect that the Government have had on those plants. We look to the Government for a clearer lead on the change in attitudes that is needed.
The Government have said that they are committed to a high-wage, high-output economy, but that has a hollow ring for the man on the shop floor when he considers the Government's pay policy, the heavy increase in taxation—an extra £335 out of everybody's pocket—and the continuing decline in output. This decline started in about 1972. In one of our major factories, the same work force and the same supply of components is achieving only half the output of 1972. This is what the Government should be addressing themselves to, but I found a total lack of any appreciation of this problem in the Secretary of State's speech.
The Government's second criterion was to assist the rationalisation of plants and the reduction of capacity. It is on this basis that we have been trying to assess the Government's investment of our money in British Leyland and Chrysler. We have no evidence of any rationalisation or any reduction of capacity. How it can be claimed that moving the Avenger production line to Linwood is a measure of rationalisation is impossible to conceive.
We are still looking to the Government for some statement of rationalisation and reduction of capacity. The CPRS Report pointed out that the effect of costs on our cars, the number of models and the volume of production leads to considerable margins in favour of imported cars.
We have now reached the ludicrous position in which, if the Government were to proceed with the recently flown kite of the abolition of vehicle excise duty and

increased petrol tax, thus creating a demand for small cars, the country that invented the Mini would be unable to supply that demand.
At the other end of the scale the CPRS Report comments that the effect of imports is largely felt on executive cars—the one area of specialist cars in which we have considerable advantages. But we have failed to capitalise on those advantages. The Government have done nothing to assist the rationalisation of plants and the reduction of capacity.
The third objective is closer relations, to ensure that fiscal, industrial and other policies are understood and meshed in. It is uncertainty about Government policies which has led to so much difficulty and lack of understanding. The contradictions in Government policies are damaging, and detract from the fourth objective of a stable economic environment.
I have referred to the possible abolition of vehicle excise duty. Another proposal has been put forward that for tax purposes company cars should be treated on a different basis. I well understand the rationale of the proposal, but its proponents have not understood the effect that it would have on the motor industry, especially in terms of the demand for fleet cars, which is so important to our two main manufacturers. It is necessary to be aware of the effect of proposals before floating them. Lack of understanding contributes to the uncertainty. I understand that the Secretary of State may already have received representations from the industry on that aspect.
Again, there is the classic example of the bus grant, which suddenly created an artificial demand for buses that our bus industry was unable to meet. What we are looking for this afternoon is not a repetition by the Secretary of State of a paragraph in the White Paper; we are looking to him to put flesh on it and muscle behind it. We look to him to show the determination and drive that the Government accuse the industry of lacking, and an intention to remedy the deficiencies.
Apart from the lead for which we look to the Government, we are also looking to the Government to see that British Leyland and Chrysler put their promises into practice. It is disturbing to find that the capital investment programme in


British Leyland has already had to be stopped because the money had gone into consumption. The first tranche of the money voted by the House—for which I voted—has not been devoted to the purposes for which it was voted. What are the Government doing about that?
We have not heard about that this afternoon, just as we have not heard what are to be the guidelines for the National Enterprise Board. At a Press conference with Lord Ryder the Prime Ministers said that they would be presented to Parliament for discussion. We were told that the bench marks in British Leyland would be made known to the House and that an opportunity would be afforded for a debate on the progress made towards achieving them before the next tranche of public funds was voted. I should welcome a restatement of that commitment in unequivocal terms.
I supported the motion originally, with some sympathy for the Secretary of State. At one stage he had the courage of his convictions and stood out against the shabby manoeuvrings which led to the Chrysler deal being patched up. But he consented to that deal, and this afternoon he reaffirmed his consent. No attempt has been made to substantiate the bald assertion made in paragraph 22 of the White Paper that the deal complies with the Government's strategy. The right hon. Gentleman remains a member of a Government who have effectively ruined the nation's industry by inflation and taxation policies; who have, by their taxation policy, taken away from the work force the ability, will and consent to work; who have reinforced wrong attitudes instead of correcting them; and who have created uncertainty instead of the stability that is necessary to progress.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appeal to the House. Ten-minute speeches will be for the benefit of all.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am probably the only representative from Scotland who is likely to speak in the debate, and I wish to comment later on certain remarks which have been made during the past two or three weeks about people in my constituency.
Many of my hon. Friends and I. while welcoming the rescue of Chrysler, did not push for that solution. We saw the right solution in public ownership as a means of holding the position with future amalgamation with British Leyland. As we spoke about this throughout the country, we did not realise a significant factor which lies at the heart of our industrial malaise.
As we were demanding public ownership of Chrysler, Mr. Riccardo, on behalf of Chrysler, offered the company to Britain. I can think of no greater illustration of the developing power of the multinational company. When the United Kingdom was seeking control and ownership, such was the power of the multinational throughout the world that it was willing to say "Take it". Such is the domination and power of the multinational that it still had sufficient power to be able to control and market the production of its empire elsewhere.
I draw to the House's attention the Fourteenth Report from the Expenditure Committee on the Motor Vehicle Industry, which states in paragraph 267:
However, a company with operations all over the world will understandably concentrate on those places and methods which offer the greatest profit potential.
In other words, the company was able to say "Take the company away from us because we have in Europe, Japan and America all that we require to penetrate the United Kingdom market".
The report goes on to say:
If the multinational company is based outside the United Kingdom, the achievement of such aims may conflict with British national interests.
That is the great problem.
The crisis facing the motor vehicle industry is only one aspect of the general crisis facing the Western world in dealing with this phenomenon. We have one weapon for dealing with the power of the multinationals, and that is the power of the State. The State can use its economic resources and trading controls to deal with widely-based empires. But in this case that power, even in a medium-size country such as Britain, was apparently inadequate.
We still have to use the power of the State within. We still think that our solution was right because in the long


run, unless we can emerge from the crisis within Britain with a large publicly-owned vehicle sector, we cannot cope with the real problems with which we have to deal.
I want to look, therefore, at the solutions put forward by the very workers who have been so greatly maligned in the last two or three weeks. I believe that the most humane and the most intelligent approach to the whole question was that of the workers themselves when they accepted that there was over-capacity in the car industry. They might have gone on to draw attention to the inevitability of the creation of over-capacity when the profit motive is present. There has to be over-capacity in order to be able to take advantage of boom conditions. That illustrates the difference between those who run the industry and those who are concerned with planning. The shop stewards have said that the problem of over-capacity is related to the production of too many vehicles in the same range and based on the same narrow philosophy.
In their proposals for dealing with the Chrysler crisis, the shop stewards suggested that this over-capacity should be used for social purposes. They underlined the need to manufacture commercial and specialised vehicles, buses and coaches, Land Rovers, agricultural tractors, heavy vehicles and so on. The shop stewards also recognise the ecological and environmental aspects, and regard the private petrol-driven car as a socially irresponsible form of transport. They urge that attention should be concentrated on developing new products of a socially useful kind.
These suggestions have come from the very workers who over the last three weeks have been criticised irresponsibly, ignorantly and stupidly in the mass media and in this House. That irresponsible criticism has been made not only in a political and industrial context but also in cartoon form. I draw attention especially to a cartoon, published in the Daily Mail, which was a disgrace to British journalism. It referred to the workers in the Lindwood plant of Chrysler in my constituency, comparing them with mercenaries. The cartoon shows two men at the factory gate. One of them holds a bag, and written on it are the words "Angola Mercenary Re-

cruitment". The man holding the bag is saying to the workers,
It's men just like you we're after—ruthless and tough, with the killer instinct. So after you've killed this place off.…".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Shameful."]
We ought to try to understand the real situation. That is why I objected to a comment made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is a rather nice and kindly Tory and for whom I have a great deal of regard. But he, too, accepted as a basic assumption that in any dispute which leads to a stoppage it must be the workers who are at fault. It would seem that there are apparently two sides to every question in our nation, except where workers and management are concerned, and then, apparently, there is only one side. Yet this assumption is made in every case of this sort.
I draw the attention of the House to an obvious truism. When any argument or difference arises between management and workers, the management can say that x shall be done, because management has the power to control x and to do it. The workers cannot say that x shall be done. They can perhaps resist x, or suggest y, but if no agreement is reached the workers have no other weapon to use.
In the Linwood dispute the management was in the wrong, and demonstrably in the wrong. The report and the decisions made at ACAS show that management was in the wrong. Indeed, the very speed with which the agreement was reached demonstrated that management knew that it was in the wrong. Nevertheless, whenever the men are involved in disputes of this sort, it is said that they alone are in the wrong.
Both the speech made by the Secretary of State for Industry two weeks ago and the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a week ago urged the need for peace in the industry and the importance of not attributing blame. I only regret that in the cartoon and in the speeches made there was no attempt to attribute the blame to the right quarter.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was not taking sides but was simply referring to the dispute and saying that there were several


different ways of resolving it without going on strike. My hon. Friend made that point very clearly when he said that he did not want to take sides in the matter or to blame one side or the other but that people should not immediately jump into a strike position when a dispute arose.

Mr. Buchan: Of course, I agree that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but both sides are required to jaw. The workers' side was anxous to negotiate but the management side took the view that all the formal procedures had gone. That was what was happening.
Of course the workers do not want disputes. The convener, John Carty, whom we have all grown to respect, and the shop stewards at Linwood did not want a dispute. Is it suggested that my constituents in Linwood, with their families, want a dispute? For God's sake, let us have some sense in dealing with this issue. We want Chrysler to settle down. We want to make it a success.
Hon. Members ought to listen a little more to the workers' case, not only in these disputes but when the workers are giving their analysis of the car industry. They recognise the urgent need for Land Rovers, for example. Why can we not come to an agreement on the need for greater production of this type of vehicle in relation to the overseas aid programme? There is a great need for this work-horse type of vehicle.
I should like in conclusion to make one last parochial comment. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) in his approach is fork-tongued like Geronimo and triple-tongued like Crazy Horse. He said that Coventry can go to the wall and that only Linwood should be saved, but when it came to a vote he voted for the deal. In the Select Committee he attacked the deal and suggested that it was done for votes in the West of Scotland, for political reasons. Why did the hon. Gentleman support the deal with his vote if he disagreed? Finally, he said that it was all wrong and that we should have used the money to grow trees.

Mr. Watt: Does not the hon. Member agree that, until this country starts to produce articles that can be sold, all the money that comes from the Government will be wasted?

Mr. Buchan: That is what I thought I had been saying for the last two weeks. I wish that the hon. Member would listen to the good advice of the workers given to him when he came to Linwood. The workers want to start producing the goods that the world requires and we can sell. That is the answer to the problem.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am sure that many hon. Members apart from myself will be grateful to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) for drawing attention to the absolutely essential contribution of the majority of the workers at Linwood.
I am in no way qualified to follow the hon. Member on this subject. However, I may manage to ward off interruptions about the desert from which I rise on this side of the Gangway if I explain, in relation to some small part of the desert, that this is the very hour—hallowed, I believe, by Mr. Asquith—at which the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Liberal Party is held.
On the television programme "We British" earlier this year, there appeared that formidable retired servant of the State, vastly experienced and highly distinguished—Dame Evelyn Sharp. This great authority said quite explicitly that she believed, as a result of all her experience, that the nation had lost its former great capacity for constitutional innovation and for keeping its institutions up to date. She was quite categoric about that. I happen to share that feeling—indeed, my party does—and I believe that it is nowhere more apparent than in the sphere of managing State assistance to industry—and particularly the motor vehicle industry, which is one of the very largest of our industries.
We are in a state of anarchy. This is admitted virtually on the first page of the document produced in December 1975 concerning the criteria for assistance. Paragraph 2 of that document begins by saying, quite truthfully, that the major extension of the public sector is now taking place. It goes on to say that this suggests that
the time is ripe to take stock of the under-lying economic and social principles which are involved.
That is rather like going out into the middle of the Atlantic and then suddenly


saying "Good heavens, it is time we found out where we are heading, the route we are taking and the time when we expect to arrive." That typifies much of the White Paper on the motor industry, and, indeed, the need for the very existence of the Ryder Committee. We had what I regard as a quite shocking Report from that Committee—even judging by the bowdlerised version which is all that this House has been able to see.
Then we had the farce over Chrysler, whether we accept every jot and tittle of the Granada television version of events or not. Finally we had the production of the document on the criteria for State assistance. All these items are an indication of the anarchy in this sphere. The only point at which the constitution has come to the rescue in this matter has been the admirable Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure. However, the Committee will agree that it is not part of its job to manage the assistance, only to pass Parliament's judgment upon it, which it has very well attempted to do.
We then come to the question of responsibility. The Secretary of State was eloquent in this direction about the contribution of the former Conservative Government to these matters in introducing the 1972 Act without any attempt to set up a structure or adapt the constitution for the ladling out of lolly in the vast amounts which have been paid. They produced no guidelines when they magnetised the routes to Linwood in the first place. I understand that Scotland is littered with monuments to the electoral expediency of the Conservative Party—half-completed steelworks and half-completed motor car works, and I believe that quite a lot of the apparatus of the oil industry will be likely to follow in the same way. Each coffin cloth will be embroidered with the initials of some vote-catching Conservative politician who will publish his memoirs in the hope of persuading people that he is a statesman.
Even with its unfortunate inheritance of this vacuum, the Labour Party cannot escape its responsibility. It is paralysed in the dreadful tug between its loathing to do anything to help the private owners of industry with Government hand-outs and, on the other hand, its very proper concern about unemployment and,

perhaps, its less proper concern to extend public influence in the industrial sphere. This terrible tug was literally painfully illustrated by the Secretary of State over the Chrysler situation. There I believe that his opposition to the scheme of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was naturally motivated by the fear that in his own Chesterfield he would face the question posed in those rough Derbyshire accents, "Does Bridgwater come to you for the weekends for this Tory-Labour pact, or do you go to Bridgwater in order to implement this ' Operation Heselvar ' from which the country is suffering so much?"
We need a major constitutional device for administering these enormous sums of money. I believe that in some way it should take the form partly of the regular presentation of a budget of Government finance for industry with all the disciplines of the Budget involved. This should have the effect of bringing in all the relevant Departments in good time instead of our experiencing the sort of scenario which Granada Television viewers were fascinated to watch the other night through impersonation by distinguished members of the Press.
Secondly, it would compel the sponsoring Departments—those mysterious organisations which sometimes talk from Whitehall as though they were positively the godparents of different industries—to get off their backs and do a bit of sponsoring and monitoring instead of just occasionally administering pats on the back. The budget procedure would focus the attention of Parliament and at least create a public awareness of how the money was to be used. Above all, in a matter of industry where precision and a certain sharpness are essential, the exposure of an industrial budget to this House would drive out those wet and woolly terms which continually crop up in these documents, particularly the document of December 1975 which has featured so largely in the debate.
Even the CPRS study, more disciplined though it is, contains some of those terms. One example is the word "viability". I have worked in business in Yorkshire for nearly 30 years without that word ever being mentioned by a client. In Huddersfield we do not say "A fine chap that, his business is viable ". We say


"A fine chap that. Even allowing for inflation he is getting a 20 per cent. return on the money he is putting in his business". I think that the term is wholly a medical one. The sickliest child, as long as it is breathing, is viable. The word fouls up a lot of our documents.
The CPRS study has begun to approach this matter. We need talk not about viability, as though mere survival had any virtue, but about comparative returns on capital employed. I pay tribute to chart 23 on page 77 of the study. It is a splendid chart showing the return on capital which ranges from Chrysler with 9·7 per cent. to Automotive Products, Birmid, Qualcast and the Chloride Group with over 13 per cent. That is not what one would want, but at least it is approaching something reasonable.
The presentation of a budget would give an opportunity for matters to be discussed in an orderly way without disclosing confidential commercial information and in a manner in which people from different parts of the country and different industries could make their contributions. We should no longer have child's guides to the assessment of companies such as we see on page 6 of the criteria of December 1975 which would just about do credit to an intermediate candidate for the Institute of Chartered Accountants, but certainly not at a higher level. On page 7, in paragraph 16 the document says, in referring to the assessments of business, that we have to consider the length of time required to give companies in difficulty a reasonable chance of achieving solvency. It is suggested that the State compounds the very serious offence of not merely allowing but assisting insolvent companies to trade in the hope that they will eventually achieve solvency? All that kind of persiflage which people get away with at the moment because it is not properly debated would be blown away if we had a series of proper budget debates.
For four years we have had a coalition gravy train for a large number of industries, some of which are of very dubious long-term value. Sometimes the train has a Tory driver and a Labour guard, and sometimes a Labour driver and one or two Tory guards. The vast cost of managing this coalition operation—or perhaps I should say coalition shambles—is met,

first, by inflicting inflation on the people who can least bear it—and, incidentally, some of those who inflict the inflation are armed with pensions which ensure that they shall not suffer from it—or otherwise by a savage rate of tax on low incomes which now bears more heavily even than in war time. This is the price we are paying for failing to keep our constitutional devices abreast of what Government of both parties decide to do. More and more tickets on this gravy train are being negotiated for even as we debate.
The time has come to create an orderly, properly-structured and understandable system for this necessary Government intervention, so that we no longer quarrel about the necessity of the intervention, which some of us, or some of us in this party, have been admitting since 1929, but instead have orderly debates about where intervention is to take place. Because there is no sign of this from the Government, my colleagues and I will be reluctantly obliged to keep dubious company in the Lobby tonight.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: In the short time that I intend to speak, I do not want to follow the Opposition Front Bench in a discussion of whether the Government should bring more certainty into their pronouncements. I am dubious about the value of pronouncements anyway, whether certain or uncertain, and I do not want to talk about Leyland or about the Budget—only about Chrysler.
I do not recall an occasion when I have been more out of sympathy with the general view expressed about Chrysler. I not only think that the Government were right; I think that they acted promptly and wisely and in the best interests of this country, both in the short term and in the medium term. I go further. Far from the deal that the Government made with Chrysler being a negligent waste of taxpayers' money, I think that it has actually saved a considerable sum of taxpayers' money, and I intend to try to show why.
I want to confine myself to what seem to be the three major charges or suggestions made by the Opposition during the debates on Chrysler, one of which, since the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr.


Lawson) and Bridgwater (Mr. King) are so worried about expunging, was wholly expunged from the speech of the latter today, although the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made it one of his strongest points—I was sorry to see that even some of my hon. Friends in former debates thought that there was something in it—namely, the fatuous charge, which has never been withdrawn, that the British Government contributed—gave—£127 million to American shareholders.
That was the assertion that the hon. Member for Henley made, together with a good deal of unpleasant anti-Americanism. It was a straightforward charge of giving money, and it is utter and absolute bunkum. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is ill. I wish that he were here to hear me say this, but I am prepared to chat to him when he comes back and I hope that he reads what I say.
This is astonishing. The idea of taking a notional share value after a Government decision and then relating it back to what was the previous share value and claiming that in some obscure way the British taxpayer has contributed to American shareholders was nicely and precisely defined by the late Iain Macleod as the "hall-mark of financial illiteracy". That is the first point.
The second point is that it is not even true. It is wholly false and can be demonstrated to be false. It does not even make sense. To begin with, Chrysler share prices did not rise upon the announcement of this deal. Why should they? Chrysler United Kingdom has never contributed a penny of profit to the Chrysler Corporation. In the second place—[Interruption.] Hon. Members can, if they like, reply to all this. I shall be grateful to hear them explain later what the hon. Member for Henley was trying to allege. I am saying that it is false.
It is not true that the share price went up immediately because no money was ever contributed by Chrysler United Kingdom to the parent company.

Mr. Tom King: That is not the only consideration.

Mr. Walden: Moreover, on the arguments which the hon. Member for Bridg-

water, who is interrupting me from a sedentary position, put today, it is the contention of the Opposition that it never will make any profit. What kind of lunatic would wish to put up the price on that assessment?

Mr. Tom King: There are many things that one can say about Chrysler, and I apologise if I did not cover all of them. There are two aspects of the subsidiary company which might affect the shares of the holding company. One is whether it contributes profits. The other is the size of the losses or the liability that it might represent. It was the great reduction of that potential liability which affected the Chrysler share price.

Mr. Walden: I do not for one second agree that it had anything to do with a great reduction in potential liability, which I do not believe has taken place. But I want to move on from this point. I offer the hon. Gentleman an agreement. Let him go to the bedside of the hon. Member for Henley with some friendly brokers and put his case. When they have done laughing at him, they will tell him what actually happened—namely, that it was a stream of good news from American plants, it was the winning of the European Car of the Year award—[Laughter.] Wait for it. Most significantly, undoubtedly the reason for nearly all of the gain is that Chrysler went up—this is undeniable: the hon. Member for Blaby has enough sense to know this—on the general rise of the biggest bull market in Wall Street for a very long time.

Mr. Lawson: The effect was disproportionate.

Mr. Walden: The charge is nonsense, and unpleasant nonsense, I might add. There is no truth in it whatsoever.
Then, when they have done with alleging that the Government are giving money to the American shareholders, the Opposition—at least, a large section of them; certainly the Front Bench, I take it—contend that Chrysler should have been allowed to collapse. Apparently, in some way which has never been defined, this would show not only great financial probity on the Government's part but a proper concern for taxpayers' money.
Well, would it? Let me give Opposition Members some figures. The loss of jobs in Chrysler, if it had been allowed to go under in the way suggested, taking in the ancillary jobs, could not have been less than 55,000.

Mr. Lawson: Rubbish.

Mr. Walden: That is 25,000 from Chrysler alone and an ancillary figure of at least 30,000. That is my view, the Government's view and other people's view.
In view of what I shall be saying, however, one can lop a little off that and work it out to the figure that I shall give of what this would have cost. This would not have been unemployment shared at the rate of 100 each in every constituency in the country. It would have been concentrated and would have fallen cripplingly on Linwood. It would have made Linwood a ghost town.

Mr. Lawson: Rubbish.

Mr. Walden: It is not rubbish. It is the plain truth. There is not enough alternative work there. It would have raised the unemployment rate in Coventry, which is already well above the national average to about one-sixth of the work force.
Most importantly of all, however, if one takes account of the additional unemployment benefit which would have had to be paid and the loss of income tax from men who would not have been paying it but who pay it now because they are in work, the cost of 55,000 unemployed men to public funds would have been £150 million for a year. That is about double the maximum amount that the Government can lose over four years, as I now want to try to show.
Nothing is more false, nothing shows more clearly the distortion and prejudice which has crept into this argument, than the assertion that by allowing Chrysler to collapse money would have been saved. Money would have been forgone——

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is just Lever's poodle.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have great sympathy indeed with the right hon. Gentleman whom he has just named.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can answer the arguments which have been made. I do not think he has any intention of trying, except on the non-sensical assumption, which is what the Opposition's case depends on, that the employment prospects in this country are so splendid that we can redeploy the 55,000 people in a comparatively short time in areas like Coventry and Linwood—[Interruption.] What did the hon. Gentleman say?

Mr. Lawson: We do, all the time.

Mr. Walden: We do? If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions in that regard for the people in Linwood and Coventry who have lost their jobs, I suggest that he hurries at once to the local labour exchanges to tell them where those jobs are.

Mr. Lawson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, on the official figures of the Department of Employment, about 400,000 people find new jobs every month?

Mr. Walden: Of course, 400,000 people find jobs. There is a very high degree of labour mobility in this country, much higher than is conceded by the party opposite on the election platform. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about 400,000 jobs a month plus 55,000 new permanent jobs. Nobody with any sense believes that such jobs are available.
My next point concerns the finances of the matter. The original statement in the Press contained a figure of £200 million. That was on the basis that under a Labour Government one should add another 25 per cent. so that the Labour Government could be criticised. It is universally believed that the figure that will be lost or given away is £162½ million. But that is quite wrong, because £35 million of that represents a Government guarantee of money which Chrysler will get from private banking sources. Only if the parent Chrysler corporation collapsed or defaulted would that money be lost. As that is not likely to happen, it will not be lost.
Of a further £55 million, £28 million is a loan on which we get interest. That sum of £28 million is secured by the parent company, and £27 million is on the assets of the United Kingdom company.


It would be technically possible for Chrysler United Kingdom to default and for the parent corporation to refuse to accept its financial obligation, but that is highly unlikely. For a major American corporation to default in that way would be one of the most stupid things for it to do. If one imagines that it would do something so stupid, one takes £63 million off the £162½ million. If one thinks that the corporation would not do so, one deducts £90 million. That means that on the most pessimistic assessment, on all the doom-mongering of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the total loss that the taxpayer can sustain for the whole four-year period is £72½ million, which is half of what we would have lost in one year if we had allowed the company to go under and we had paid out unemployment benefit.
The truth is not that the British car industry is perfect, not that the British Government never make a mistake, but that the Opposition, through prejudice or perhaps ignorance, have not carefully looked at the Chrysler situation because they did not want to do so. They were too worked up by the spectacular rumours which went around when it was originally set up. They have not done their homework. They do not deserve to win the Division, and I hope that they will not do so.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I have followed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) with interest. I think he has brought some of his customary colour and life to the debate. I should like to mention two points which he raised, as I was shaking my head violently during his speech.
It is an undeniable fact that when one creates a potential liability for the British taxpayer of £162½ million and one reduces the debts of a subsidiary of an American company or increases the assets of it, that must affect the market capitalisation of that company in America, and that will be taken into account by the shareholders. There was a substantial increase in the share price of the Chrysler Corporation, and the increase was substantially more than that of other major car companies on the Stock Exchange.
With regard to the total liability of the British taxpayer, where does the hon. Gentleman think £162½ million comes from? If there is no liability involved in putting the money in, or if it has not been spent, let him tell us so. The fact is that the potential liability—in the worst possible circumstances, I agree—is £162·5 million. We all hope that the losses will not be as great as that, but in the last resort the British taxpayer is on the hook for that amount.
In discussing the Government's industrial policy in relation to the motor car industry and the criteria which they employ, it is fair to say that it is more easily identified by their deeds than by their words. The Government's approach as set out in the White Paper, "The British Motor Vehicle Industry", speaks lyrically of
encouraging the fundamental changes in attitude",
of reducing assembly capacity,
establishing closer relations with the industry",
and of
providing …a stable economic environment".
How hollow these statements seem in the wake of events. Are we encouraged to believe that the attitude of the packers at Linwood, who have now been promoted to production workers, displays a fundamental change in attitude? Are we satisfied that the relations between Lord Ryder and his prospective subsidiaries displays a closer relationship between Government and industry? Are we satisfied, at a time when the pound is sinking and when inflation is increasing, that we are on a more stable economic footing? In spite of the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, the problems highlighted by the Central Policy Review Staff and the concern of the House of Commons Expenditure Committee at the lack of financial monitoring, the Government are liable to spend up to £2·8 billion on British Leyland, £162·5 million on Chrysler, and—who knows what?—on future ailing motor companies to subsidise in large part unviable businesses.
The Prime Minister, speaking to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce last month, said that the motor industry could not necessarily rely on Government


money if it continued to disrupt production. How strong is the Government's resolve? It was displayed at Linwood recently, but it did not come to the final stage where they had to cease all subsidy payments to Chrysler. The settlement to the packers of £1·10 a week was made by way only of regrading the status of those workers. Chrysler is committed to bringing its United Kingdom plants up to Coventry pay levels, but the £6 pay limit will prevent that commitment from being honoured. What is the Government's policy and what is the position with regard to that agreement?

Mr. Tom Litterick: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that a number of the employees are already above the Coventry levels? In addition, would the hon. Gentleman develop the point over which he skated very quickly? Does he think that the Government's job is to blackmail, bully, threaten and coerce free men into accepting working conditions which have never been negotiated and jointly agreed? Does he believe that that is the Government's rôle?

Mr. Nelson: With regard to the pay settlement I should make it clear that I am talking about the whole of the Chrysler company. It was an integral part of the negotiations for the settlement at Linwood. Secondly, with regard to the whole of the industry and the pressure that Government should put upon agreements, I think it was quite right that the Secretary of State did to a large measure try to assist in the difficult discussions which took place. Nevertheless, where the British taxpayer is on the hook to spend substantial sums of money on risk capital in industry, it is proper that we should endeavour to find out whether there is a possibility of getting binding agreements with those employed in industry that they will restrain their wage demands to a proper level.
With regard to the formulation of a credible industrial policy, one of the important constituents of this, which was presented to the NEDC, was that it should take account of consumer choice. While it is proper that we should be concerned about the taxpayers' liability, and about the effect that such funding will have on chances of employment, it is proper, in considering the future viability

of the motor car industry, that we should take more notice in the future of the consumer's views and his demands.
Paragraph 10 of the White Paper states:
The importance of the motor industry to the balance of payments, to employment and to the industrial structure of the UK make it imperative to achieve a substantial and viable volume car industry in this country.
There is no mention of the consumer's choice or demands which should be accounted for in the industrial strategy for the car industry.
I should be interested to know what the Minister considers the future to be of the Motor Industry Consumer Council which was set up by the National Consumer Council to look into questions of planned obsolescence, after-sales service and representations to car companies in which the Government have a stake. What rôle will this body play, and how does the Minister hope to improve the dialogue between customers and manufacturers on these matters?
I want to remark briefly on British Leyland, which has been covered at length this afternoon. Hon. Members may have read some of the comments of Mr. John Barber, formerly a senior employee of British Leyland, which were published in the Financial Times today.
He said:
The art of the game is to develop cars in sectors of the markets which give the best volume/cost/price relationship for the talents of the particular company.
Although the White Paper did not comment on the reason for Mr. Barber's dismissal following his criticism of the biblical Ryder Report, he raises some important arguments which the Government have a responsibility to taxpayers to answer.
First, the reduction of British Leyland models from its former 15 to its current seven is under way. However, it is suggested that four main bodies plus one unique one is the highest number British Leyland can sustain without low volume per model and the complexities and cost of running a large number of different production lines. This point was also made in paragraph 37 of the CPRS Report. That will cost the taxpayer money, and we should like to know whether the Government have had any consultations with the company to find


out whether its proposals in this area follow any guidelines which they have set.
Secondly, British Leyland's top management perhaps lacks some of the car marketing and production experience which is necessary to revive the company's fortunes. I suggest that the position may be substantially worsened under the direction of the National Enterprise Board. If the Minister can make any conciliatory remarks on this matter I should be grateful.
British Leyland's strength lies in superior production engineering, yet the Government's policy in practice is orientated towards continuity of existing production, that is to say, subsidising the production of cars that people do not want to buy, as opposed to improvements in the quality control, and pitching of new models at the up-market volume car market.
I turn to Chrysler. The Government have estimated that the losses this year may amount to £40 million, which is approximately the same as the losses last year, with a £20 million contingency. However, at present the company is faced with a drop of some 25,000 units in exports to Iran and has set a target of 81½per cent. as the market share in the United Kingdom for its marketing team. We welcome the percentage share which it was able to achieve in the first month of this year, but it has a substantial way to go to achieve this average target for the rest of the year. Production changes, the phasing out of old models and labour difficulties in switching the Avenger from Coventry to Linwood could bring this loss to over £60 million.
In such circumstances there is no agreement under the documents that were exchanged to cover losses in excess of £60 million this year. The Government's limit to the end of this year is £50 million and Chrysler's share in loss funding is £10 million. What happens if it is more? The Executive Vice-President of Chrysler (Europe), Mr. Gwain Gillespie, said that Chrysler would have to take another look at the agreement. Therefore, it is proper to ask, if the loss is substantially more, whether the taxpayer is on the hook for a larger amount. I hope that the Minister can give us his views on that.
There is still no satisfactory answer as to how Chrysler will finance four new models in its programme out of the £55 million capital grant. Mr. Riccardo said that the programme would be achieved by integrating model policy more closely with Simca in France. It is important that we should inquire what this will mean in terms of jobs in this country. Are the six models and the production locations to be rationalised sufficiently, and what will this do to average cost per unit? What studies have the Government undertaken in this area to ensure that the production, efficiency and productivity targets meet the requirements that the Government set in their funding?
The Industrial Development Advisory Board recommended against the Chrysler rescue plan, but the majority of the Board were prepared to accept the scheme if greater capital commitment from Chrysler were to be forthcoming, if the Government had a right to curtail or vary their commitment and if there were binding agreement with the work force on manning levels and productivity. These are the minimum conditions that should obtain.
Greater investment and higher productivity are, however, not necessarily the best medicine for an industry which may in certain sections be overmanned. Although we are often compared with the success of other car-producing nations, notably Japan, it is also fair to say that, as the international demand for cars dwindles or remains static, many of them will now be encountering some of the structural problems that we have.
I want to ask the Minister about the future of the Jensen company which is based in West Bromwich—an area of high unemployment. The plant is due for closure in April if no solution is reached. What discussions has the Department of Industry had with a view to injecting money into that company? The good intentions of this Government are so often replaced with political expediency that this is a proper question to ask.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I am sure that many of my constituents wish that they had got as much of their car manufacturing experience from the Library as the hon. Member for


Chichester (Mr. Nelson) did. The hon. Gentleman referred to bringing Chrysler's pay rates up to those of Coventry's. He does not know about the dispute at Linwood, where one reason for the management's digging in was the fact that in the possible transfer of the Avenger from Coventry to Linwood it was possible that they would have to bring Coventry rates up to those paid at Linwood. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman mentions bringing the whole of Chrysler United Kingdom rates up to those of Coventry, he should know what he is saying.
I am not surprised at the completely out-of-touch remarks of Conservative Members. The notional liability that the Government may incur will arise only if everything goes wrong with the deal of £162 million. Let us not forget that it was on 17th December that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who at present is ill, managed to excel himself and increase the total to £358 million. If we take into account the fact that he increased the total capital cost to £218 million and the total Government contribution to the losses to £105 million, we may wonder what the Opposition know about the car industry. In doing that the hon. Member for Henley conveniently forgot to take into his calculation the fact that the Chrysler Corporation has an obligation to pay for half the losses incurred, up to £72,500,000.
Furthermore, in his calculations the hon. Gentleman completely omitted to say that many of the planning and development stages for the new models envisaged in the declaration of intent have already been paid for. From the pronouncements that have come from the Opposition it is apparent that hon. Gentlemen have not gone closely into the deal.
I accept that the deal that was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and others was not the most perfect that could have been concluded. Nevertheless, only £63 million—arrived at in the negotiations—out of £162 million will be paid by the Government if the parent company, namely, the Chrysler Corporation, totally defaults. A further £27 million could arise if the assets of Chrysler United Kingdom are not sufficient to guarantee half of the £55 million loan if the parent

company totally fails to meet its obligations.
When Conservative Members refer to £162 million it bears repeating that even if the deal goes completely wrong and the Chrysler Corporation reneges on its obligations the Government liability is only £63 million.
As for the total losses to which the Government are committed, again, £72½ million over the next four years is the total loss only if everything goes wrong. Again, however, the parent corporation is committed to meeting £32½ million of that. Therefore, we ought to have a far better analysis from all the self-styled and self-proclaimed financial wizards that appear on the Opposition Front Bench nowadays.
I do not proclaim that this is the last word, or the deal to end all deals, but when the Press and Opposition Members talk about £162 million, they really ought to know what they are talking about. I believe that this deal may not last for the whole of the planned duration. I have constantly said that, inside and outside the House. Nevertheless, if it gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a breathing space in which he can plan what to do with the British car industry, I believe that the deal has been well worth concluding.
What we have to do now is to see what we want for the whole British motor industry. I am talking not just about Chrysler but about British Leyland as well. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—with whom I agree on most other things—that I was one of those who did not favour the public ownership or the nationalisation of Chrysler United Kingdom, as an option, a way out, or a solution to these kinds of difficulties. I have always thought that the nationalisation of Chrysler, because of the rationalisation that it would ultimately have entailed, would mean far more redundancies and planned rationalisation. The only alternative to a massive rationalisation programme and redundancies would have been another British Leyland-style support operation. The Government could not have afforded that. Even if they could have afforded it, it would have totally jeopardised plans for British Leyland. Surely Opposition Members must have some regard for the value of the Iranian contract—at least


£100 million a year for supplying CKD Avengers to Iran—and for the kind of Middle East market that we could have lost.
The most important argument that we must bring to bear on this agreement is the fact that if Chrysler United Kingdom had been allowed to collapse up to 10 per cent. of the British car market could have been left vacant and a prey to Japanese and German imports—indeed, all imports. Considering the fact that British Leyland now has 90,000 customers waiting for cars—and British Leyland, I think, made a very fundamental miscalculation in its "Superdeal" sales campaign—I do not believe, as the Think Tank Report impiles, that British Leyland or other British manufacturers would be in a position to supply 10 per cent. of that market if Chrysler vacated it.
What I am saying, in other words, is that the only alternative to this rescue plan must be a policy of import controls. If Opposition Members want to oppose this deal they must tell the House and the country who is to supply the 10 per cent. of the market that would have been vacated by Chrysler. I do not believe that it would have been British motor manufacturers, because of their capacity problems and production difficulties. It could certainly have been the Japanese, Italians and Germans, who at present have very high stocks of cars in this country and high numbers planned to come here.
My main point is that in both the Chrysler and the British Leyland rescue operations, which were to some extent forced upon the Government—the Government had to do something about both of them—now that we have injected the initial tranche into British Leyland and made the initial injection into Chrysler, we must have both undertakings working, and working efficiently, for the sake of the workers, the customers and the dealers. We have to do that above all, and to do it immediately and efficiently.
However, during the two years that we have—I assume that we have a possible two-year period in which to think matters out—we must get down to thinking to what extent this country intends to stay in the small and medium end of the model ranges. We still have not decided that. To what extent, for example, ought

we try to compete with Datsun, Toyota and Volkswagen, which have capacity for 2 million units a year, at least? To what extent ought we to be contending with Ford of Europe, General Motors Europe, Citroen-Peugeot, or Renault, with a capacity of at least 1½ million units a year? My right hon. Friend must decide to what extent this country ought to be competing in that end of the market and to what extent we ought to be using public money for that.
I end as I began. I do not think that this is the most perfect of all possible rescues, but I recognise the contribution that my right hon. Friend has made to saving the jobs of my constituents. This deal will not cost anything like £162 million. If it costs half of that sum I shall be very surprised indeed. During this breathing space let us work out what kind of car industry we want, because merely injecting Government money into British Leyland and Chrysler does not automatically give us the industry that the nation deserves.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I should like, first, to address myself—with great respect to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield)—to the twaddle that we heard a short time ago from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), who seemed to think that economic illiteracy somehow became literate if it came to his ear from the mouth of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am afraid that even in such circumstances it remains economic illiteracy. In the brief time at my disposal, I shall try to demonstrate why.
The hon. Member for Ladywood says that if the 25,000 people at Chrysler and the 55,000 people in ancillary industries had all gone on the scap heap it would have cost £150 million a year. First, I have news for the hon. Gentleman. Under the Government's plan one-third of the Chrysler workers are due for redundancy—so there is £50 million of the hon. Gentleman's £150 million gone. It is already down to £100 million. But what is £50 million more or less to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Brian Walden: If the hon. Gentleman is going to use figures, he might as well get them right. I was talking about


£55 million. There will be 8,000 redundancies. The hon. Gentleman is already talking more about the ancillary workers.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. He takes the 25,000 and uses a multiplier of roughly three to estimate the total unemployment, including workers in ancillary industries. But 8,000—roughly one-third—of the Chrysler workers are to be made redundant anyway under the Government's plan.

Mr. Walden: Ancillary workers.

Mr. Lawson: Right, but the 8,000 of the 25,000 Chrysler workers will be made redundant anyway, and there are ancillary workers connected with what they would have been doing. Therefore, the sum is reduced from £150 million to £100 million. However, that £100 million is arrived at on the assumption that the people concerned will be unemployed for a whole year. When there was a voluntary redundancy scheme at Linwood, more people volunteered to be made redundant than the firm actually needed to make redundant. Those people would hardly have done that if they had thought that they would be out of work for a year. Of course they would not; nothing of the sort. They knew that they could get better and more secure jobs in a reasonable period.
It is no use Labour Members muttering because they do not like the truth and the facts. I speak as someone in whose constituency there are many Chrysler workers.
The fact is that even now, in the trough of the recession, when the average length of time that people remain on the unemployed register has increased considerably, that length of time has nevertheless increased only to six months. That is too long, and of course no one likes people to be unemployed for that length of time, but it is six months and not a year.
Therefore, we must apply that factor to the £100 million, which brings it down to £50 million. That itself is an exaggeration, because of the pre-supposition at the beginning that the whole Chrysler operation would have closed down, although that has never been suggested by anyone. What the Opposition suggested, as was set out in the excellent

criteria paper that we are meant to be debating, was that a receiver or liquidator should be brought in and that the viable parts should be kept going. Certainly that is true of the commercial vehicle division of Chrysler, which employs 3,000 people—and again, there are ancillary workers connected with them. If our proposals had been adopted, the total cost would have come out at about £30 million.

Mr. John Wells: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the viable parts of Chrysler, may I remind him that it is absolutely deplorable that the Government have done nothing about Chrysler at Maidstone, which is one of the few parts that is totally viable? The Minister failed to answer a letter that I wrote to him months ago——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very brief debate and long interventions are not welcome. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Lawson: The Prime Minister and I share the same birthday, Mr. Speaker, but not many other things. I am sure that that intervention was sufficiently full to receive a reply from the Minister who answers the debate.
The fact of the matter is that we are talking about £30 million if the Opposition's strategy had been adopted, which is also the strategy of the criteria document. Against this, there is a liability of £162½ million under the Government scheme. It might be less.

Mr. Walden: It will be.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman says confidently that it will be less. Chrysler, which knows something about its own business, and in particular, Mr. Riccardo, who knows something about his company, were so confident about the future of that company that they offered the Government £35 million to take it away from them, lock, stock and barrel. The hon. Gentleman says that it will be less. It may be, but it may be more.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton gave the game away when he said that he does not believe that this deal will last the full four years of the agreement. He is right, because Mr. Riccardo and Chrysler will be coming back for more money long before the four years are up.
The hon. Member for Ladywood, for whom I have the greatest respect, must in future find a better and more impartial source for his information on the Chrysler deal than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
This debate has been something of a disappointment to me. This important criteria document was half extracted from the Secretary of State for Industry and half volunteered, although it was a very strange thing that it was not volunteered until I tabled my Written Question. I cannot think why, if the right hon. Gentleman was so keen on its being widely known, it was not published earlier. But now that it has been published, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to talk about it and explain the importance of the various criteria. I thought that he would explain to his hon. Friends how important it was that a receiver should be brought in, particularly in the assisted areas.
That matter would be of interest to those at Linwood, because there are certain benefits that a receiver could get in assisted areas. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would explain to his hon. Friends what the criteria now were and what the importance of profitability was—some of them do not fully recognise it—and that he would say how, although he was terribly sorry that he was overruled in Cabinet and, therefore, that the criteria could not be adopted in this case, nevertheless they were sound criteria and they would be adopted in future. It was this total failure to talk about the future that was particularly worrying to me and to others.
Not only did the right hon. Gentleman not go through the criteria and explain what they are; this document has never been published as an official document. It has no official number, it has no White Paper number, and no House of Commons number. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as he is here, that he should publish it, first of all, as a White Paper and incorporate it lock, stock and barrel as a schedule to the Industry Act 1975.
I feel that the right hon. Gentleman should not only have gone through the criteria document and explained its importance but should have given an assurance for the future and said "The

Chrysler deal was very difficult, but in future we shall apply these criteria. There will be no more backsliding, as there was with Chrysler. We mean business about this."
The significance of this has not been fully understood by the Press. I have here The Times for 28th January. It had a big story on this document. It was a little late—28th January—as the document came out on 12th January, but, after all, it was The Times, and one cannot expect everything. On 28th January The Times got round to it and it headed its story—"Government tightens rescue rules." The story was all about how, in the aftermath of Chrysler, the Government were tightening up on their rescue rules. The House knows that these rules came out long before Chrysler. The right hon. Gentleman knows it. Chrysler was an aberration, a falling away from the path of virtue.
We would therefore like a firm indication that in future these criteria will be adhered to. It is very alarming that we have not been told in any way how this document will be applied on future occasions. What we are debating now is the Government's failure to apply their criteria. We want to know fairly and squarely where the document now stands and whether the Government are going to apply it in future or whether they will go in for "phoney" job preservation, based on fake figures such as we heard from the hon. Member for Ladywood.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in his censure of the Secretary of State. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman came here with the guidelines—the criteria—but, if he did not, perhaps he will give the document to the Minister of State so that he can say something about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby was absolutely right; this is what the debate is about. The Government knew perfectly well what the debate was about; it was in the Business Statement. It is not our fault if the usual channels on the Government side have become blocked up. They must have known perfectly well that this is what the debate would be about. We give them one more opportunity and express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be


able to say something about the criteria later.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) talked about Linwood becoming a disaster area—that was more or less the implication of what he said about Linwood—if there were a large number of redundancies. It is not so very widely known, but no doubt it is known to the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan), that in the local employment area of Linwood there are 86,000 jobs and at present Linwood itself represents only 7,000 of those. Those are the figures I have. So it was gross exaggeration to talk of Linwood turning into a ghost town. The hon. Member for Ladywood may know Birmingham very well, but I am glad to see the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West sitting next to him, because he is no doubt putting him right.
I want to reinforce the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby about those who applied for redundancies. If there had been any danger of Linwood becoming a ghost town—a prospect which fills the minds of all of us with horror—not so many would have applied for redundancies. In response to the reduction of 1,250 announced by the company, 2,319 applied for redundancy. That effectively answers that point. I know that the hon. Member for Ladywood is very well informed about many things, but clearly the facts about Linwood are inaccurate.

Mr. Buchan: rose——

Mr. Grylls: I shall try to give way later. This leads me into the whole question of the Linwood dispute. This is central to the Government guidelines, because it is something that happened only a very few days ago and is of great concern to the Government. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister made speeches about the Linwood dispute. The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West and I had words about the affair earlier.
I quote what the Scotsman said about the Linwood affair in the middle of it, because this is, perhaps, a fair analysis of what happened:
The management have shown themselves insensitive to the mood and reaction of the workers and once again the workers have been

too quick to jump to the defence of their colleagues.
I think that the Scotsman very fairly was apportioning blame on both sides. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will agree with that, but I believe that is a fair analysis of the situation. It is not accurate to accuse the Opposition of saying that this is all the fault of the work people at Linwood.

Mr. Buchan: This is the first time that I have learned that the Scotsman reflected the views of the official Opposition. I have always thought that it was the bugle of the Scottish National Party. I do not know what the hon. Member is talking about when he refers to 86,000 and 7,000. He will have to work that out with his innumerate friend. He must remember that the people at the factory there have been working on short time for a year with not very high take-home pay—not much higher than unemployment pay. That was the background and that is the continuing prospect. Against that background, and with the 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. unemployment in the area, the closure of Linwood would have meant disaster——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has already addressed the House. Other hon. Members failed to get in. There is only a brief time left for winding up.

Mr. Grylls: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I wanted to be as fair as possible. In quoting the Scotsman, I tried to put an uncontroversial view which I think is right.
In the middle of this expensive dispute, when the car factory came to a standstill, the Secretary of State made dire threats that money would not be forthcoming, and there was courageous condemnation of the strike by Mr. John Boyd, who said that he thought the dispute was deplorable and that the men should return to work. The sad thing was that nobody believed the Secretary of State's threats. Bernard Levin put it very well in an attractive phrase when he said that everybody knew that the Government's yells and fierce faces were only for show. Nobody took the slightest notice of the Secretary of State's threats to withhold the next tranche of money. As the Select Committee said, it


was not a practical possibility. Clearly, the workers at Linwood also thought that.
There was a settlement after 19 hours of negotiation by ACAS, but the result of the Arbitration was inevitable. It was rather like the love play of a prehistoric monster—a long process, but with a predictable result. We knew that as soon as negotiations began there would be a surrender. The management got itself into that position and then surrendered, thus encouraging the repetition of the same sort of thing.
That dispute has been settled, but we look through the criteria in vain to see any general principle referring to industrial relations. Neither in British Leyland nor in Chrysler has there been any clear-cut commitment from the workers. The taxpayer has been told that he must pay up and that he cannot argue, but the workers have made no commitment to play their part.
There has been much reference to the Industry Act 1972. When he was Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), in dealing with Dan McGarvey and others over the Upper Clyde situation, obtained a firm commitment from the unions that there would be industrial peace before a penny of the taxpayers' money was committed. There were hopeful noises in the Ryder Report about things changing at British Leyland, and the Chrysler contract, signed by the Secretary of State on 5th January, contains a clause allowing the right hon. Gentleman to withhold payments if industrial relations do not improve. The next payment is due on 15th February. The sum involved is £15 million. Curiously, the payment is being made on a Sunday.

Mr. Varley: Monday.

Mr. Grylls: It is a Sunday, but that is just one of those mistakes which do not matter.
Does the right hon. Gentleman plan to invoke that clause if there are industrial relations problems? I hope that there will not be such problems, but we should know the right hon. Gentleman's plans, as the clause is in the contract. People have a right to demand of the Government—who have committed the investment of public money—and of the House—which has approved that commitment—that firm

assurances be obtained from the employees that they will play their part. The people involved, including the management, should know that there is no chance of their adopting the attitude that they have a meal ticket for life because they are in a firm either taken over by the Government or, as in the case of Chrysler, supported by it.
I do not underestimate the serious industrial relations problems in the motor car industry throughout the world. Those responsible for the CPRS Report visited five plants in Europe. As far as I know, no overseas visits were made by those who produced the Ryder Report. The CPRS Report found that the British factories started late and finished early compared with the European ones, and stopped before and during shifts, whereas the European plants had their production going virtually non-stop. We must get to the bottom of the problem.
There is clearly an international problem of working conditions in the industry. Is it because of noise, monotony, or the way in which the work is organised? Can the work be made more interesting? I believe that one report spoke of the slavery of production in the industry. That may be a fair comment.
In the axle factory at Elsdon, in the United States, an employee, James Johnson, recently had a dispute with a foreman. He left the factory and returned with a shot-gun, with which he shot and killed two foremen. His defence lawyer claimed that conditions were so bad that he was not responsible for his actions. When the judge and jury visited the plant they found conditions so abominable that they decided that poor Mr. Johnson was temporarily out of his mind when he shot the foremen. There are problems in motor plants, and ours, unfortunately, are worse than others.
We want to hear from the Government today what thought they have given to these problems. They and the taxpayer are now deeply financially involved in the industry. I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State that he is setting up a high-powered group under his chairmanship, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller) said, it is all very well to set up a group ; the situation in the industry is so serious that we need to make changes immediately. Yet another report


will not suffice. For example, what is happening about amalgamating bargaining units, and about participation agreements?
There has been some progress in British Leyland, which we welcome, but will the Government use their massive investment programme to try to persuade the unions to reduce their numbers in the factories? I understand from the Select Committee Report that British Leyland has to deal with 17 different unions. I can imagine nothing worse for the unions and management. It is one of the things that make the British industry so much more troublesome than many of its competitors. We want evidence that the Government are doing something about it.
I hope that the Secretary of State's group will not sit for the next six or seven months, but will study the problems immediately to find out what makes factories in this country so different compared with, for example, the Chrysler factory in France—Simca—which is described as a certain winner, with huge investment and huge profits. It has not had a strike for 23 years. One of its workers, who was interviewed recently, said of the management "They have thought about us". It may be one of the faults in this country that that does not happen here.
Many other workers who were interviewed said that they wanted nothing to do with politics. They said that all they wanted from a union was more money, and the only two subjects that raised enthusiasm among them were cars and girls. I believe that that is a proper sense of priority, although some of us might reverse the order.
The Opposition will continue to oppose and criticise the Government for their attitude to the industry and their lack of control over investment until we can see signs that the firms in which they have invested are improving. Until then, we have a right, on behalf of the public, to be dubious and to ask the Government to work much harder on the matter. There is not much that we can do about public expenditure. That is why we have sought to reduce the Secretary of State's salary by £1,000. Incidentally, because of taxation that reduction would not make much difference to him.
I ask my hon. Friends to support the motion in the Lobby.

6.50 p.m.

The Minister of Stele, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The Opposition are constantly demanding debates in this House on all kinds of subjects, and after two and a half hours of this brief and scrappy debate it is still difficult to know why they have wasted a Supply Day by choosing this particular topic. I suspect that originally it was selected to give the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) the chance to treat us to his well-known turn yet again, but most unfortunately he has fallen ill and the debate has lost its sole justification. We miss him. This matinee performance has been like Hamlet without the gravedigger.
But we really did not need yet another debate about British Leyland. We have debated it ad nauseam and almost ad infinitum, and the House had repeatedly expressed its support for the Government's approach. We did not need this debate either to go over the old familiar ground about Chrysler. We debated Chrysler at length before Christmas, two days running, and returned to the subject a fortnight ago. On every occasion the House has supported the Government by substantial majorities.
The Opposition, it seems, still do not understand the facts. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) and Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) have given those facts again today, and no hon. Member opposite was able to refute them, although the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) took twice his allotted time in failing to do so.
Nor are we debating the principle of State aid to the motor industry. Previous Tory Governments have provided lavish aid to that industry. Indeed, Linwood would not be a motor car town if generous Tory regional assistance had not attracted the industry to Renfrew-shire, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) fairly pointed out. Indeed, apparently the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) wants us to provide aid for Jensen, but presumably, if we provided the aid he has asked for, he would vote against it as well.
The Tories surely cannot have staged this debate either because they disapprove


of this Government having used the Industry Act 1972 as the channel for continuing their aid to the car industry. After all, the Tories created that Act as a major instrument of policy, brushing aside the doleful and reiterated warnings of the present shadow Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who opposed the Act throughout its passage in the House of Commons.
The Tories cannot contend either that their Act was all right but that in operating Section 8 we are disregarding their own strict criteria, because they never published any criteria whatever for Section 8. They conducted their own rescue cases—NVT under the 1972 Act and Rolls-Royce under separate legislation—on pretty much the same basis as we have proceeded.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) talked about the criteria as having been at last extracted from us. But the Tories never had any criteria on Section 8 to be extracted from them at all. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Blaby rejoiced so much in the fact that I have placed a very large number of copies of the criteria in the Vote Office. The way he went on about it made one feel that that will be the peak of his political career.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has demonstrated how much more lavish and, indeed, profligate the progenitor of the 1972 Act, the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), was ready to be. Nor can the Opposition, however much they try, very credibly get righteously indignant about any alleged departures by this Government from the industrial strategy announced at Chequers.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater complained that our strategy was late in coming. But the Conservative Government never had any industrial strategy at all, except by recourse to the presses to print sufficient money to spend their way out of the economic difficulties which they themselves had created. But hon. Members opposite may say that all that was in the old, unregenerate days, the bad old Heath days, when they turned away from the true faith and shattered the tablets that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had carried down from Mount Selsdon. Now we are told that the Opposition have

seen the error of their ways and have repented. Their former Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry have been consigned to the Back Benches, and hardheaded realism reigns supreme once again. But the view very much depends on which part of this Palace one's vantage point is.
On the Floor of the House, value for money and viability are the Opposition's watchwords, and this is emphasised by the selective way hon. Members opposite quote from our criteria, with paragraph 21, dealing with social costs and employment considerations, carefully ignored. Up on the Committee floor, however, those social and employment considerations which they reject down here are still very much official Tory policy—policy backed not only by their voices but by their votes as well.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater and the hon. Member for Henley are not only their party's spokesmen on the motor car industry but are its spokesmen on the shipbuilding industry as well. Last week, in Standing Committee D, which is considering the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, we debated a most important amendment most powerfully moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). That amendment instructed the Secretary of State, in carrying out his function of giving general directions in the publicly-owned shipbuilding industry, to take account of considerations relating to regional areas and, in particular, employment considerations within those areas.
My right hon. Friend, in moving the amendment, flatly rejected what he described as the narrow objective of commercial judgment. We in the Government resisted his argument and the amendment. But it was carried against us and inserted into the Bill. It was carried because it was supported by the voices and the votes of the official Opposition spokesmen, including the hon. Members for Henley and Bridgwater. They voted in favour of regional and employment considerations and against commercial judgment—"commercial judgment", the very words that the hon. Member for Bridgwater has used against us in this debate.
Now the House can choose what opinion to hold. Either the Opposition upstairs in Standing Committee D were


simply acting opportunistically and were cynically inserting into a major——

Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State to waste the time of the House on matters taking place upstairs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of State has only two minutes left.

Mr. Kaufman: Either the Opposition upstairs in Standing Committee D were acting opportunistically and were cynically inserting into a major legislative measure an important provision in which they did not believe, or else they did believe upstairs in what they were saying and doing.

Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing Committee D has not yet reported. Is the Minister of State in order in referring to its proceedings on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker: If the Committee Hansard is available, the Minister of State is entitled to make what I call a gentle reference to it.

Mr. Kaufman: In either case, everything that the Opposition have said in this debate, all their pleas for profitability, viability and commercial judgment, has been hypocritical humbug. The Opposition in this debate stand condemned for opportunistic hypocrisy. I ask the House to confirm that condemnation by voting down this paltry and cynical motion.

Question put,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be reduced by the sum of £1,000:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have to inform you that there has been a miscount in the "No" Lobby. I have to report this to you before the figure is announced. I therefore give you notice that there is a dispute on the Division figures.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that I must have the Tellers at the Table to make

the complaint which the right hon. Gentleman has made.

The Tellers being come to the Table—

Mr. J. D. Dormand (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I wish to confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has said, that there was some confusion on at least two occasions during the telling. I support the claim that there was a miscount.

Mr. Speaker: Do the other Tellers agree?

The Tellers indicated assent.

Mr. John Peyton: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure whether a Division is still on. Perhaps you would be kind enough to rule whether there is a Division in progress so that I know whether to stand up or whether to keep this thing on my head.

Mr. Speaker: The Division is on until I get the result. If there is a dispute, I shall make an announcement to the House.

Mr. Peyton: (seated and covered): I had misunderstood you, Mr. Speaker. I thought you had ruled that there had been a miscount and, therefore, the Division could not be on.

Mr. Speaker: I shall be ruling so within a few minutes. It was not in order for me to do so then. I am follow-precedent entirely. When there is a disagreement about a Division, the House must take another decision. That is clearly understood.

Mr. Peyton: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point I wish to put to you is whether this is the moment at which the Question should be put again.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. This is entirely in accordance with precedent. I shall call the Division off and will put the Question again.

Mr. Peyton: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether this is correct. All that we have heard is an allegation that two mistakes were made


during the count. It seems a mysterious and facile way for the Government to get rid of a result which may well be unwelcome to them.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand the position, I am not likely to receive the figures. The Tellers are here. It is in the best interests of the House, if we are to have another Division, that we move to it now to save time on the next business.

Mr. Mellish: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in his point of order. I do not know about the dispute in the sense of how it happened or why, nor am I aware of any of the figures involved. However, the business that is to follow this evening is important. Another Division now would in many respects give an untrue picture—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members should not push their luck. I am wondering whether it is in order and follows precedent for the vote to be taken on another evening to be

decided between the usual channels. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there is another Division now, it will be an unrealistic vote. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have gone home.

Mr. Speaker: I wish I could be of help, but, as I understand my duty, it is quite clear that I have to put the Question as soon as we have finished the points of order.

Mr. Dormand: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word "dispute" has been used on two occasions. For the record, there is no dispute between the Tellers. The Tellers from both sides are in agreement about the mistake. There is no dispute.

Mr. Speaker: If the House does not wish to divide again, nobody will shout. However, as both Tellers have agreed that there is a mistake, my duty is clear. Whether there is a Division depends on whether hon. Members shout.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 209.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Corrie, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Aitken, Jonathan
Costain, A. P.
Hicks, Robert


Alison, Michael
Crawford, Douglas
Higgins, Terence L.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Critchley, Julian
Holland, Philip


Arnold. Tom
Crowder, F. P.
Hooson, Emlyn


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Baker, Kenneth
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (cardigan)


Banks, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, John


Bell, Ronald
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hurd, Douglas


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Durant, Tony
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, Sir William
James, David


Body, Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bottomley, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jopling, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brittan, Leon
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fox, Marcus
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bulmer, Esmond
Freud, Clement
Knight, Mrs Jill


Burden, F. A.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Knox, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Cheasham)
Lamont, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lane, David


Carson, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gorst, John
Lawson, Nigel


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Le Merchant, Spencer


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cockcroft, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Lloyd, Ian


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Loveridge, John


Cope, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Luce, Richard


Cordle, John H.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Paul
MacCormick, Iain




McCrindle, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Pardoe, John
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Penhaligon, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Madel, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marten, Neil
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Mawby, Ray
Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mills, Peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Trotter Neville


Moate, Roger
Rifkind, Malcolm
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Monro, Hector
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wakeham, John


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


Morgan, Geraint
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Watt, Hamish


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sainsbury, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wells, John


Mudd, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Welsh, Andrew


Neave, Airey
Shepherd, Colin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Nelson, Anthony
Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Neubert, Michael
Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Newton, Tony
Sims, Roger



Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. W. Benyon.


Page, John (Harrow West)
Speed, Keith





NOES


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Lamond, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bates, Alf
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Litterick, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Loyden, Eddie


Bennett. Andrew (Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin
Luard, Evan


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Boardman, H.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Booth, Albert
Ford, Ben
McCusker, H.


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McElhone, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mackintosh, John P.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
Madden, Max


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Graham, Ted
Mahon, Simon


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grocott, Bruce
Marquand, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cohen, Stanley
Harper, Joseph
Maynard, Miss Joan


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Millan, Bruce


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moonman, Eric


Cunningham. Dr J. (Whiten)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davis Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Greville
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Newens, Stanley


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Noble, Mike


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ogden, Eric


Doig, Peter
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
O'Halloran, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank
Park, George


Edge, Geoff
Kaufman, Gerald
Parker, John


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kerr, Russell
Pavitt, Laurie


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Peart, Rt Hon Fred







Phipps, Dr Colin
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Small, William
Ward, Michael


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Snape, Peter
Watkins, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing, Nigel
Weetch, Ken


Radice, Giles
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stallard, A. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stoddart, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John
Whitlock, William


Roderick, Caerwyn
Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rooker, J. W.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Roper, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rose, Paul B.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sandelson, Neville
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woodall, Alec


Selby, Harry
Tierney, Sydney
Woof, Robert


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tomney, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Urwin, T. W.



Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sillars, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The figures which the Tellers have announced and which you have confirmed, resulting from a three-line Whip operated by the Conservative Party and my party for a Division at 7 o'clock to be followed by Private Business, indicate that the vote is not a true reflection. I hope that we shall hear a statement from the Opposition Front Bench that the vote is not relevant. Vast numbers of Government supporters have left the House, and I should like it to be recorded that the Government do not accept the decision which has been recorded.

Mr. Speaker: What the Government accept is not my responsibility. The "Good Book" is absolutely clear. I had no choice but to call a second Division in those circumstances. I cannot be held responsible, except for declaring the result.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House knows that the ruling you have given is the only ruling you could have given, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury did not raise a point of order but abused the point of order procedure to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful for any compliment from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have invited the Opposition Front Bench, through the usual channels, to make their comments. If they are not prepared so to do, I wish to record again that this is not a true vote, and the Opposition know it.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For once in my life, I have nothing to say.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that the Prime Minister has gone to see the Queen?

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury say that the Government would not accept the verdict of this honourable House. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a breach of the privileges of the House. Whatever the House decides, it is surely sovereign and its will must have effect. Unless some question arises about the Division which we have just held, it surely must be for you to ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark. The sovereignty of this House demands that whatever decision it makes be binding on those on whom the decision is meant to be binding.

Mr. Speaker: The House has had a fair share of time on points of order. I must make perfectly clear that I am not responsible for the carrying out of decisions that are taken by the House. What the Government do and what the Opposition do are their business as long as they keep order in the House.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I give notice, Sir, that, in view of what has happened tonight and the vote that has been recorded, I shall have discussions through the usual channels and put down the appropriate motion next week.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your guidance? Might we know what the usual motion is and whether there is a precedent for the inability of the Chief Whip to hold his numbers here and then to try to abuse the procedures of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are reduced to each side scoring off the other rather than pursuing points of order.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. George Park: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am aware that many hon. Members have received representations on various Parts of the Bill, but the constraints of time in a short debate, made even shorter by the previous happening, do not permit a detailed examination of the proposals. Therefore, the main burden of my remarks will be to try to persuade the House that the Bill should be taken in Committee to allow the proposers the opportunity of deploying their case and to permit objections from responsible people and organisations to be examined.
If the House were summarily to reject these proposals, it would ignore the fact that the content of the Bill, in large part, is related to problems and needs in the West Midlands. Perhaps the proposals are not framed in accord with the wishes of the House, but I understand that the council believes that it could meet objections by way of amendment if given the opportunity.
In approaching the Bill, and the feeling that the needs could be met by current legislation, it might be as well to recall that before local government reorganisation in 1974 there were many local Acts in existence in the West Midlands, each of which applied to a local government

area. After 1st April 1974 these local Acts continued to apply, but only to the old areas. In addition, there is the fact that local legislation in the West Midlands lapses in 1979.
I turn now to the various parts of the Bill. Part II concerns trading. The principle of municipal trading is not new. There are a number of industries, such as gas and electricity, in which, historically, it has been undertaken. Today the number is even greater.
One example is civic catering. It should be noted that the requirement in the Civic Restaurants Act 1947, that trading should stop if there were a deficit for three successive years, was relaxed by the Conservative Government in 1974. I doubt whether Conservative Members would have done this if they had not felt that the powers were being exercised responsibly and fairly.
I understand that it is not the intention of local authorities in the West Midlands to enter into extensive and damaging competition with ratepayers, and that the primary purposes of promoting such powers are twofold. The first is to enable local authorities to make provision in cases where the private sector is unable or unwilling to do so. The second is to allow local authorities to extend existing activities in cases where it is to the benefit of the public so to do. For example, Coventry runs an abattoir, and it seems not unreasonable that it should be entitled to provide a butchery.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Why?

Mr. Park: Similarly, it would seem not unreasonable that a local authority should be empowered, in its parks department to sell goods which can be produced at marginal cost over and above its normal costs, and thereby to contribute to the rate fund. It is not the intention to open butchers' shops and florists' shops throughout the area. The council also appreciates that there cannot be unlimited borrowing power without reference to the Secretary of State or unspecified powers in Clause 7.
Part III dealing with motor racing, has a provision which is of interest to Birmingham and to Birmingham alone. It should be noted across the House that in Birmingham it is a non-party issue.


I understand that the leaders of both major parties are in agreement on this and that the last vote on it in Birmingham was 80 to 20. There is, therefore, a great measure of agreement in Birmingham, and the district council would seek the opportunity to come before the committee and justify these proposals.
Part IV deals with powers concerning dogs, and Part VI deals with the parking of vehicles. There are very real problems underlying these proposals. The objections, however, come in the main from those sections of the community which do not create the problems.
Dog lovers and breeders do not allow their dogs to roam the streets, but can anyone gainsay the fact that there is a problem from vagrant or stray dogs, in many part of the West Midlands, savaging children and old people and fouling the pavements?
Similarly, members of caravan clubs and camping clubs do not normally park their vehicles in such a way as to interfere with the amenities or the convenience of their neighbours. But some people do. I am sure that hon. Members would not take very kindly to the parking of high-sided vehicles or commercial lorries outside their door or in the drive alongside, night after night. I am sure they would object. In an urban area, particularly, the complete freedom of the individual sometimes has to be tempered to the general good.
Part V relates to aircraft and traffic noise. It is a fact that the Department of the Environment might report against the traffic section of this proposal because it has recently been the subject of national legislation, but there is no national legislation that enables local authorities with their own airports to provide for insulation against noise, and the provisions in the Bill are modelled on those already obtained by Manchester and Luton.
Taking account of the fact that many Members will wish to contribute to the debate in the short time available, I conclude by saying that I have tried very briefly to summarise the underlying problems that have sparked off these proposals. I submit that they are worthy of further examination.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: If the Bill is accepted by the House it will result in the bringing forward of a great variety of other county council Bills. This, in turn, will jam up the whole machinery of Parliament. Doubtless there will be some comment from the Front Bench on this issue.
I hope that the Bill will be rejected by the House. If the city of Birmingham wishes to proceed with its racing track, it can go ahead as a city and build that track, with proper permission. Likewise, if the city of Coventry wishes to have fresh provisions for its hackney carriage administration, let it devise some such provision. I am sure that other minor provisions of the Bill can be dealt with in that sort of way.
Looking at the Bill as a whole. I regard it, quite frankly, as a dangerous measure. More than that—it is a silly Bill. One can see that it has been devised by a variety of persons who seem to have been quite unable to produce a coherent Bill of any sort.
I do not regard this as a particularly Socialist Bill, or as a Marxist Bill; it is a combination of some of the oldest elements in the Labour Party, which are now really almost medieval. It is a sort of reincarnation of the spirit of the Mayor of Bursley. It goes back to the Stoke-on-Trent of Arnold Bennett. It appeals to some of the spirit of Joe Chamberlain when he was reforming Parliament. It reminds one of some of the absurd remarks made by Maud after he had destroyed local government, when he talked of reviving the civic virtues of our people. The Bill is completely out of date.
Because of the sort of world in which we live, the actions of a variety of both Conservative and Labour Governments have destroyed the ability of local authorities to be effective in areas where they should be effective. The proposals for trading are only to fill in the interstices of the capitalist or trading organisations set up by the State. The only people who will be affected are the small traders. Can one imagine anything more absurd than the city of Birmingham setting up a hotel chain to compete with Fortes? Can anyone imagine anything more ludicrous than the town of Wolverhampton engaging in a major exercise, in competition with


Shell, to set up a garage system? These powers will be used where the small people are involved, and that is precisely the point at which private enterprise is most effective in rendering services. I can imagine nothing more foolish than a florist's shop or a butcher's shop being set up by a metropolitan authority.
Some Socialists will argue that this is a great step forward. However, one has only to consider the confused drafting of the Bill and the financial provisions by which its authors blandly announce that they will borrow money without Treasury consent. The one thing that a Communist Chancellor would stop would be the borrowing of money by the city of Coventry without the authority of the Government.
Clause 12(4) illustrates the incredible struggle that took place between the geniuses who devised the Bill—a Socialist element—and the ratepayer element in these councils. Here is precisely repeated one of the main problems of all Administrations—the virement of funds. At the end of any year the funds have to be returned to the ratepayers' fund. How can any business of any sort be built up on such a provision?
Lastly, there is the amazing Clause 7, which from my experience at company law I judge would be called the articles of association. These articles make it possible for the city of Coventry or Wolverhampton to do anything it feels inclined to do. Plans could be devised for the building of motor cycles or atom bombs, or anything else. Anything is possible. We know that this is gobblede-gook, because not for one second would the Treasury ever permit it to happen. This is just a course to bankruptcy and stupidity.
This is a dog's dinner of a Bill, and the House should not burden itself with further consideration of it. Perhaps I should say that it is not so much a dog's dinner as a Yapp's supper. It is a waste of public time and a waste of the time of the House. It is a Bill that will merely annoy people, whether they are Left or Right, by its intolerable inconsistencies. It is a godsend to our party for the forthcoming elections, because with this kind of legislation I am sure that Yapp and his crowd will be swept out of office, and they will deserve what they get.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) moved the Bill in extremely moderate terms. He was quite right to refer to some of its good aspects, several of which I support. I support the provision of accommodation for the under-40s and the provisions in Part IV to deal with the problems of stray dogs.
However, those who framed the Bill were very badly advised. It would appear that they had no expert advise from this place. I do not know whether any hon. Member was advising them, but whoever did it gave bad advice. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that it is a bad Bill, and although there are some good aspects in it these are far outweighed by the bad. For that reason I shall reluctantly vote against it, and I say "reluctantly" because I should be sorry to see the good provisions lost.
Those who devised the Bill suffered from an excess of idealism. They have tried to do too much in one Bill, and, as a result, good provisions will go. There are bad provisions which the House must reject. There can be no question of the House allowing such a can of worms to be examined any further. I question whether the Bill is an improvement, as is suggested by the preamble. It is the job of the local authority to concentrate on its many responsibilities in providing an infrastructure of roads, social services, housing and so on. It must do these tasks efficiently, and the problem in the West Midlands is that this is not happening. The services are being provided sometimes well but sometimes wastefully.
As elsewhere, there has been a growth of bureaucracy in the West Midlands. In a speech at Eastbourne my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to an increase in the numbers employed in municipal jobs from 1·5 million 10 years ago to 2·5 million today. The West Midlands has shared in this increase in local government employment, but services have not kept pace with the rising number of jobs. In many areas services for the ordinary people have been reduced.
I opposed as best I could the reorganisation of municipal boundaries brought about by the late Dick Crossman. I was


glad that in his memoirs he reminded us of the way this was pushed through. It was a lesson in how not to reorganise municipal administration. I am glad that I opposed the Bill at the time, and I am sorry that we were not successful in retaining some of the old authorities which were doing a good job and were close to some of the ratepayers they were serving.
If we were foolish enough to allow the Bill to pass, there would be no improvement in services for ratepayers. Many representations have been made to me about the Bill—from the Walsall Co-operative Society, which is wholly opposed to its trading aspects, from the traders in Willenhall and Bloxwich, and from many traders in Walsall, South and Aldridge-Brownhills. There is no doubt that there is widespread opposition to the Bill in the West Midlands.
Clause 5(1)(e) provides for the provision and the maintenance of garages and filling stations. This could be very dangerous because the local authority running these activities could be responsible for planning permission for them. There could be serious suspicions that it was manipulating its planning responsibilities to advantage its commercial activities.
There are provisions for authorities to take shares in other companies. A company applying for planning permission, particularly for a petrol station, might find it beneficial to arrange a shareholding for the local authority. We do not know how these powers will be used. It is no argument to say that the present intention is to use them moderately. It cannot be guaranteed what future local authorities would do.
Clause 6 relates to the power to print. It appears to be a restriction, but if a local authority establishes a plant to print its own minutes or a newspaper to distribute to ratepayers it might use only 10 per cent. of the plant's capacity. It would then be able to use the machinery for commercial printing, which would not be acceptable to commercial interests.
I agree that Clause 7 is ridiculous. No one in his right mind would approve such a provision. Clause 9 (1) and (2) allow for preferential treatment to organisations with which a local authority has a shareholding arrangement. That would be extremely dangerous.
Clause 11 contains some curiously-written provisions about accounts. It refers to any credit being passed on, but how will any loss be made up? There must be a suspicion that if any activities were uneconomic either the councils concerned would disguise the real costs, as they could do, by allocating executives whose time was not truly apportioned——

Mr. Tom Litterick: That is a disgusting imputation.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am simply saying that this is something which it is very difficult for a council to decide. If an executive is employed in various directions and part of his time is spent running a florist's or butcher's shop or a petrol station, how will a council decide what proportion of his time is spent on which activity? It would be an arbitrary decision and people might suspect that the rate fund was being used to subsidise those activities.
Many councils show little expertise in doing the jobs they should be doing. Many are falling down on the job, rates are too high and the employment rolls of many West Midlands authorities are inflated. Many people in those authorities have a soft number. I have pressed the Secretary of State for the Environment to establish a section of his Department to provide assistance in making an effective evaluation of jobs in municipalities. There is enormous waste, as the Prime Minister himself confirmed in his famous East-bourne speech.
Until municipalities have reformed themselves and shown that they can be efficient, there can be no question of letting them enter these activities. Others can do these things better. Efficient co-operative societies, Marks & Spencer and petrol chains can best serve the consumer. We should not encourage local authorities which have so much else to do to divert their attention into these activities, where others should be responsible.
Turning to Part IV, I agree that there should be some action over the problem of stray dogs, but here again the Bill goes too far. It wants to establish a bureaucracy to issue certificates of registration for every dog—an enormous task. What happens if someone fails to conform?

Mr. Clement Freud: Ask the Prime Minister.

Mr. Stonehouse: Clause 36(6) says:
If a person keeps a dog in a district in contravention of the provisions of this section or fails to identify his dog in the manner required by the certificate of registration he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 and to a daily fine not exceeding £5.
That is very high for, say, an old-age pensioner who may not have good advice. Even £1 a day would be a big blow for people.
I agree with Part V. It is important to deal with aircraft noise, and authorities should have power to provide insulation grants.
I regret that the good aspects of the Bill are submerged in nonsense. I wish that the majority of the Bill were good: then I could support it. But the majority is bad, so I shall vote against it.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Conservatives throughout the West Midlands and on the Opposition Benches are totally opposed to Part II of the Bill. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) made a responsible and moderate speech, but his suggestions for further consideration were inadequate because of the inadequacy of his instructions from the promoters. That is because of the drastic nature of the powers proposed. They simply do not permit consideration on the casual basis that the hon. Gentleman suggested. He was really asking for matters to be dealt with on the basis of another and very different Bill.
In January the promoters of the Bill were advised, by myself among others, to take the Bill back and think about it again because there were obviously serious objections to it. They would have saved the resources of the ratepayers and the time of officials if they had taken that advice. Unfortunately, however, they have gone on with the Bill. The powers sought are so extreme that the Bill does not deserve the continued consideration for which the hon. Member asks.
On the need for adjustments relating to changed boundaries, there is plenty of time before 1979 for a more suitable measure to be introduced. It is widely

recognised now that Part II gives fantastically extended powers to local authorities to provide unfair trading competition over such a vast range of trades and small businesses that practically every commercial activity in modern life is affected and possibly endangered. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) was quite right to say that local authorities in the West Midlands should concentrate on their present duties and obligations and should not seek to get involved in wide-ranging activities of which they and their officials know very little. These powers are totally unjustified.
Our opposition is based upon four main grounds. First, the Bill is silent on the question of trading losses. Undoubtedly these losses would fall upon the ratepayers in general, and hundreds of ratepayers have expressed their considerable fear in this respect, as well as over 44,000 people in the West Midlands who signed in support of a petition to this House opposing Part II. Experience of nationalised industries leads us to believe that the bureaucratic extension of municipal trading on the scale envisaged in Part II would inevitably result in heavy losses and, consequently, severe additional burdens upon ratepayers.
The second main ground of our opposition relates to the important matter of unemployment. The Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers has expressed its oppositon to the Bill on the ground not only that the union found that there was no evidence of the need for municipal shops in the West Midlands but also that it could lead to a monopoly situation that might go to the extent of effectively eliminating consumer choice in a particular area. The union went on to say that it opposed the Bill also because of its fears that it could lead to unemployment among its 62,000 members. In my view any member of this House who cares about the frightening growth of unemployment in the West Midlands—unemployment has tripled within the last two years—must pay heed to this serious warning.
The third main ground of our opposition concerns the unfair nature of the competition to be provided. As the Secretary of the Walsall and District Co-operative Society pointed out in his letter of


31st December 1975 to West Midlands Members,
Local authorities now act as enforcement agents in respect of many laws affecting retailers. In addition, they are planning authorities with wide powers including compulsory purchase. Soon under the Community Land Act they will be able to acquire development land either for their own use or disposal at market values. In our opinion, no local authority could compete fairly with other traders in view of its special position described above.
The secretary of that union was absolutely right in his judgment. There could not be fair trading competition against a local authority with these enormous overriding powers.
I must, however, add another important factor, which increases the unfairness of the proposed municipal competition. This Bill would authorise unlimited borrowing on the part of the local authorities, repayable over terms up to 60 years. No small business or trader could possibly hope to borrow money for business purposes on such favourable terms. Many shopkeepers and small businesses of all kinds are struggling for survival on account of some of the damaging effects of Labour policies upon their businesses. The Government must tonight make clear their position with regard to the unlimited power of public expenditure contained in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) was right to emphasise the importance of this matter.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment promised on an earlier occasion that the Secretary of State would make a statement to the House on this Bill. I hope that he will be able to make it. Indeed, the Secretary of State ought to be here——

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): Since the Secretary of State has been mentioned, I should like to say that my right hon. Friend is suffering from influenza, and I am therefore standing in for him.

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am sorry to hear of the Secretary of State's illness.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will accept the obligation to spell out to the House the complete inadvisability of the powers contained in the Bill relating to

the unlimited nature of local authority borrowing. That is extremely important.
Any Minister who thought of voting in favour of the Bill should realise what damaging consequences it could have to the economic policy of the Government in other directions. That must be emphasised. Any who vote in favour of the Bill are flying in the face of Government policy, which is necessarily trying to deal with a desperately serious economic situation.
Our fourth main ground of opposition is that Bills of this kind could, and we believe would, be operated by Left Wing authorities to end the way of life which is represented by small independent local businesses. This would cause untold harm to the economy of the country and would bring about a severe loss of political freedom. I wish to make it clear that we shall fight Socialist policies of this kind with all our strength.
West Midlands Members have received a lot of correspondence on the Bill. I have received a number of letters which are critical of the provisions concerning dogs, caravans, the parking of vehicles, and many other matters. However, I understand that many Members wish to speak, so I shall not go over that ground, because I am sure that it will be very well covered during the debate.
For the reasons that I have mentioned, Part II is totally unacceptable, and it makes the entire Bill unacceptable. It is necessary that it should be replaced by another measure of a different nature. I say with all the strength at my command that Part II is so unacceptable that the whole Bill must be rejected.

8.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) introduced the Bill with commendable brevity and moderation. Because of the number of Members who wish to speak, I shall try to emulate that brevity.
May I make clear to the House that this is a Private Bill—it is not a Government Bill—and it is traditional for the Government to intervene in the debate and express their attitude to the Bill as a whole.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East said, the Bill is


introduced at this time, whether hon. Members on either side of the House agree with its provisions or not, because the powers in a great deal of existing legislation come to an end in 1979, and the authorities concerned, having properly considered their position, have brought before the House a Private Bill in which they wish not only to preserve some of the powers which they already possess but to extend those powers, and in some directions to extend them appreciably.
The Government's attitude to the extension of local authorities' powers, if they consider such an extension of their powers to be in the interests of their areas, is to say to them "You are right to consider this in a Private Bill and to consider what benefit your area will receive, and bring the Bill before the House."
However, there are certain provisions of the Bill which the Government could, if the Bill goes into Committee, in no way countenance. First, there is the provision under Clause 7 for blanket trading powers. It would be inadvisable for local authorities to continue to seek or to have blanket trading powers. I know that those advising the district and county councils—no matter what remarks have been made about them in the House—by including Clause 7 may well have been trying to set parallels in a Private Bill with the sort of provisions contained in the articles and memoranda of association of companies which give blanket trading powers to those companies and ensure that they can never be criticised under their articles and memoranda of association. We do not consider it appropriate for such blanket provisions to be laid down in the Bill, because a local authority is not a company. Therefore, we frown on Clause 7.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) mentioned Clause 10, which seeks to give unlimited financial borrowing powers to local authorities. I do not think that any Government of any political persuasion could agree at any time to local authorities having that power. Therefore, if the Bill achieves Second Reading and goes

into Committee the Government would frown upon such a provision and seek its removal. A Government would do that at any time but a Government at the present time who ask for severe financial restraint on public spending generally would certainly not countenance unlimited borrowing powers by a local authority.
Some Conservative Members may disagree with our attitude towards the trading provisions. I shall in a moment suggest what the House should do. It may be that within a local authority area there are instances—some may be given tonight—of a failure of the private market system to provide certain facilities for people and where it would be advisable for the council to step in and provide those facilities, even though it may cost the ratepayer or taxpayer money. Pharmacists and chemist's shops have been mentioned. There may be areas in some parts of the country—I am not saying that there are—where the nearest chemist's shop is a considerable distance away. That is a matter which the House should carefully examine.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The House knows of my interest in this matter. If there is an area which is not provided with adequate pharmaceutical services by private enterprise, is it not the duty of the area health authority, the hospital pharmacist service, or the chemist contractors to provide such a service and not to introduce a fourth tier when three other authorities have that duty under the law?

Mr. Oakes: That may well be the case. I am sorry that I mentioned pharmacists but I refer to the situation in which insufficient facilities are provided in an area and where the council seeks to rectify the deficiency.

Mr. Michael Morris: rose——

Mr. Oakes: I hope that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
There is another provision where municipal trading would be in competition with people outside the council. If the Bill goes into Committee the Government's attitude would be that such municipal trading should be considered carefully by the Committee so that the


accounts balanced year by year and there was no subsidisation of that trading by the ratepayers, which would be unfair to ratepayers in general and to other traders in that area in particular.
There is also the vexed question of motor racing. The Government take a more neutral view on that. However, this issue has generated considerable debate throughout the West Midlands. If the powers were to be given the West Midlands they would be unique in the United Kingdom in allowing motor racing on the public roads. It may be appropriate that the home of the motor car industry, Birmingham, should be the place to have it. The greatest possible care should be taken in framing this legislation so that it protects the environment of those who live in the area where motor racing takes place and so that it ensures the safety of those in the area when they travel to and from their lawful business. Furthermore, the greatest care should be taken in relation to any indemnity into which the local authority entered, which in itself may reflect back on either the insurance premium or the rate fund of the local authority.
I have listened carefully to the debate. Almost all the arguments advanced so far and those which will be made later this evening tend to concentrate on Part II of the Bill, which deals with municipal trading. Most of the caveats that I have entered have concentrated on Part II. Therefore, I adopt the traditional rôle of the Government in relation to private legislation and ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Cormack: Go to the dogs.

Mr. Oakes: That is quite a traditional rôle for any Government to take on a Private Bill. I ask the House to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and hon. Gentlemen to consider each aspect of the Bill. I appreciate that Conservative Members have strong feelings about Part II. They are entitled to express their views.

Mr. Cormack: Go to the dogs.

Mr. Oakes: I am trying to put the Government's point of view. It is silly to keep saying "Go to the dogs". It is Part II of the Bill that attracts opposition. Many provisions in the Bill are perhaps a repetition of those in previous

Bills. There are also provisions which I should have thought would have received wide acceptance by all hon. Members, certainly by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is concerned about aircraft noise. There are provisions which deal with the control of dogs, which can be a nuisance in an area. Other provisions deal with the unlawful parking of caravans. Therefore, the Bill does not deal solely with municipal trading. The House is, of course, entitled to throw the Bill out in its entirety. This is a Private Bill and the House is entitled so to do.
From the Government's point of view, and with the caveats that I have entered—that we would certainly set our face against Clauses 7 and 10, and some of the provisions with regard to municipal trading—our attitude, which is traditional of Governments of either major political complexion when Private Bills come before the House, is to say, "Let the Bill have its Second Reading, let the House itself decide what powers should be given, and let only the necessary powers be given if the Bill goes through Parliament."

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: I thank the Minister for telling us comparatively early in the debate what the Government's view is. I am bound to say that I can tell him from the Opposition side of the House, and certainly from the Conservative Party's point of view, that we shall not respond to his invitation to allow the Bill to go forward, for reasons that I shall explain.
I wish to raise one or two matters in respect of the Minister's speech. First, we always have difficulty in dealing with the hon. Gentleman because he is such a reasonable man in these matters. As I said from this Box not many days ago, the fact of the matter is that it was his right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government—and perhaps others of his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet who are not so moderate or reasonable about these affairs—who, last April, said that he sympathised with his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), who was asking for legislation for local authorities to carry out many of the things that are detailed in Part II of the Bill. However, it is fair to say that there are at least differences


of emphasis among Members upon their desirability or otherwise.
The Under-Secretary raised the matter of the argument about the date—1979. I am glad to see that the Minister for Housing and Construction is present this evening, because he has promised the House that there will be legislation to deal with the geographical problems concerning direct labour organisations. That, presumably, will be a Government commitment. It may well be that the Government will wish to chance their arm and to put some of the provisions of which they approve into similar legislation. They would have a fight on their hands if they did, but that would deal with the geographical matter and the year 1979.
I am glad that the Government are against Clauses 7 and 10, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, with which I entirely agree. He mentioned the Government's view that if the trading activities took place, from one year to another there should not be losses, and that if there were losses they should not be carried forward. That is what I understood him to say. I understand that. However, is not the problem here the problem that the Minister for Housing and Construction appreciates in regard to direct labour—the question of accounting and making sure that one does not lose money on shared overheads and that one has commonality of techniques? In practice, this would be much more difficult, particularly as at present the Government will not accept the CIPFA recommendations.
It is unusual for an Opposition to vote against the Second Reading of a Private Bill. However, as has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), this is a most unusual, distasteful Bill. It is a bad Bill indeed. One might almost say that it is an abuse of the Private Bill procedure—having such a clause within it which is extremely controversial, in a way that I have certainly never seen in my time in the House in relation to a Private Bill.
There is and can be a genuine debate about the wisdom of motor racing, about

the dog provisions, about the provisions relating to caravans, and about the other matters. Those are perfectly acceptable in a Private Bill and they can be argued in Committee. I have no quarrel with those provisions whatsoever. However, the fact is that Clause 7, about which we know the Government are unhappy, and certainly Clause 5, taking it in its entirety, really open up the whole field for local authorities to do virtually anything that they wish. Clause 12 anticipates losses. Notwithstanding anything that the Government may say, at the end of the day the ratepayers would pick up the Bill not only on direct losses but by the diversion of the effort of councillors and officers who ought to be doing other things but who would be getting more and more involved in these activities.
Most reasonable people, whatever their political persuasions may be, would find it extremely unacceptable to have this form of competition, whereby the very people who are suffering from unfair competition might have to pick up the tab at the end of the day on their rates, whether commercial or domestic.
We have to ask one or two questions. Where are the vast reservoirs of management expertise and talent to run these activities? Do they exist in local authorities at present, among councillors or officers? I beg leave to doubt that. We know how officers and councillors, in all parties, are in many cases overworked at present, and that they are certainly not floating around looking for opportunities to make any work for local authorities. As has been rightly mentioned, what about the effect on local authority staff? There is bound to be a considerable increase. Even the Government now accept that staffing in the public sector must be reduced. The Prime Minister has said a great deal about that.
Clause 10 has been mentioned, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. This clearly would be totally unacceptable. However, as the Bill, in practice, allows local authorities to make anything, to sell anything and to provide any service, apparently with very little account of profitability, I do not think that anyone could believe that the House would be acting responsibly tonight by giving it a Second Reading.
As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) pointed out, the


statement on behalf of the promoters says:
It is the intention of the local authorities…to exercise those powers in a fair and responsible manner.
Those are subjective terms. What is fair and responsible to me may not be fair and responsible to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the decision on what is fair and responsible in any local government matter rests ultimately with the electors in the area concerned, who decide which councillors to accept and which to throw out? Does the hon. Gentleman have so little confidence in the capacity of his own party to win local elections that he thinks that local authorities must at all costs be prevented from doing these things?

Mr. Speed: I remind the hon. Gentleman that in a few weeks' time there will be district elections among all the metropolitan districts in the West Midlands. No doubt the electors will then be able to give their views on this matter. As far as I am aware, the form of the Bill was certainly not introduced into any manifesto during the metropolitan district elections last year, or during the elections for the West Midlands County Council two years ago.
The hon. Member should not seek to fall back on the electorate in that way. Once something becomes the law of the land, Governments rarely find time for repealing legislation. It would be difficult to unscramble this measure. I am the first to accept that when there is a Conservative Government there tends to be a swing to Labour, and perhaps particularly to Left-wing Labour local authorities, and vice versa. If the Bill were to be passed in its present form it could present an open cheque to local authorities, which might be much more Left-wing than the promoters of the Bill, to do anything they wanted to do in future years. If the Bill is passed, it will be the law of the land and it will be no use looking back to see what the Minister said or what I said.
It is said in the statement on behalf of the promoters:

the powers are required to enable facilities to be provided which are not at present provided by private interest".
I presume that "private interest" in this context includes the co-operative societies. I have not heard, either in this debate or in that which took place about a fortnight ago, any argument about a specific shortfall of services, except as regards pharmacists, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) dealt with.
For a time I represented not only the largest constituency in the West Midlands but the largest constituency in England. In that time I received not one complaint about a shortfall in these private services. I received many complaints about shortfalls in some of the statutory services or public undertakings. However, Clause 15 specifically forbids any competition with them. Hon. Members representing West Midlands constituencies will know that the complaints they receive are not to the effect that there is not a small shop on the corner or in the Bull Ring; the complaints are much more likely to be about statutory undertakers. But they are totally outside the Bill. We have already heard what the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and a number of co-operative societies have said.
The House must consider seriously whether it should respond to the Minister's invitation to give the Bill a Second Reading. There can be no guarantee that changes will be made in Committee. If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight, the principles embodied in Part II will have the approval of the House. Everybody has admitted that Part II is the major part of the Bill and is certainly the most unpopular part.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Would it not also save further expense by those who have petitioned against the Bill if we reject it tonight?

Mr. Speed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was coming to that point. There are a number of unfairnesses already. The ratepayers of the West Midlands will have footed the cost of preparing the Bill. If the advice of my hon. Friends representing West Midlands constituencies had been followed, that cost could have been saved. There are substantial costs to petitioners of one kind


or another. It would be wrong for those costs to be incurred when, tonight, we can tell the promoters "We do not like the Bill. There is a major part that we find offensive. If you take it away and bring in the other provisions later, in another Private Bill, you will save yourselves and many people whose livelihoods are threatened a great deal of time and money."
Part II is bad for businesses, large and small, as it could involive the possibility of unfair competition. It is bad for employees and trade and industry, because it could lead to unemployment, as the unions are saying. It is bad for local government, which in the West Midlands and elsewhere already has more than enough to do without being diverted down the highways and by-ways. Local government is ill-equipped for entrepreneurial activities of this kind. The Bill is bad for the ratepayer and the taxpayer, who are likely to have to pay for the losses. It is bad for the national economy, because it is a misuse of resources. It is bad for the West Midlands, because it gives the area a totally unwarranted impression of militant Socialism. It is bad for the consumer, because at the end of the day he will have less rather than more choice, and it will not improve services for him.
The case in favour of the Bill has not been made by the Minister, by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, or by the promoters in their memorandum. In philosophical, presentational and practical terms we on the Opposition side of the House find Part II singularly offensive, and I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The debate must end at 10 o'clock. Seventeen hon. Members still wish to address the House. I must leave in their hands the solution to the problem.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The Bill has been described as a dog's dinner, but many local authority Bills are dogs' dinners for obvious reasons. Local authorities tend to collect together large numbers of provisions in one piece of legislation because normally they can introduce only one piece of legislation a year.
In this case the county council asked various district councils what they wanted in the Bill. Some of them said that they wanted an extension of municipal trading. Birmingham said that it wanted motor racing in the centre of the town—and that is not a party matter. The part of the Bill dealing with the parking of caravans and heavy vehicles was included at the demand of Solihull District Council, and so on. That is why, in Bills of this kind, there is a selection of various items.
The Opposition have concentrated on the clauses dealing with trading, but there are many other provisions in the Bill—for example, the motor racing clause. I am not committed on that matter. I believe that the clause dealing with that issue should be examined in Committee and a decision made by the Private Bill Committee on the evidence taken.
Various local authorities and other sources say that the increasing number of stray dogs is becoming a hazard to health and to traffic and that the increase inflicts cruelty upon the animals themselves. Perhaps some of the measures in the Bill go too far, but that is for the Private Bill Committee to consider.
Clause 44 would give power to provide residential accommodation for students and nurses. Surely that is an item which hon. Members on both sides of the House would support.
Part V of the Bill deals with aircraft noise and would provide for residents near, for example, Elmdon Airport the same sort of facilities as, I understand, residents near Heathrow Airport enjoy—the provision of sound insulation. There is great demand for it in the area. Once again, this is surely a provision which hon. Members on both sides would support.
I am arguing that, although Opposition Members have a rooted objection to Part II of the Bill, they should not throw out the baby with the bath water by throwing out the whole Bill. All these matters can be discussed clause by clause, with the taking of evidence, by the Private Bill Committee. Those of us who have served on such Committees know that they give matters before them very great consideration: counsel are involved, evidence is taken and petitioners


and objections are heard. I am sure that the Private Bill Committee would come to the correct decisions in considering the many clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Eric Moonman: Of course there are good things in the Bill—one does not deny that—but can my hon. Friend indicate to those of us who are not connected with the West Midlands why in Clause 6, in face of the opposition of the print unions—I am a member of one of them—there is reference to a local authority having power to undertake printing? The clause is headed "Power to print".

Mr. Silverman: There has been a great deal of hysteria about the Bill. A local authority could not buy extra machinery for the purposes of Clause 6 additionally to what it already has. There is no question of there being a big competition in printing. Clause 6 says:
A local authority shall not purchase or in any other way provide printing machinery solely for the purposes of this section but may only undertake printing in accordance with this section with the use of machinery acquired and used by them for the purpose of printing in connection with the discharge of any of their functions under any enactment…
Clause 6 is clearly intended, as I am sure the other trading provisions are intended, for very limited use.
There are two purposes. The first is to provide facilities where they are not provided by private enterprise—and there is no doubt that these facilities are needed. In my constituency, shops of certain kinds are needed. The second purpose is to enable a local authority to use its own resources in methods which are profitable to the ratepayers and which will defray the costs. That is the general intention, and the wording of Clause 6 would fulfil it in relation to printing.
I do not know why people are so hysterical about municipal trading. It has a long history under both parties. One of the greatest municipal Socialists was Joseph Chamberlain. Tory councils operated electricity and gas undertakings. When I was a member of Birmingham City Council, the Tory chairman of the gas committee proposed that the council should buy two or three coal mines because he thought that the price of coal was too high. There was not any objection by the committee or by the council.

I do not know what the latter-day Conservatives would say about that. Birmingham has run a civic restaurant under both parties for almost a generation, profitably and effectively, and it has not killed private enterprise. It provided a needed service in the city.
A more recent example is that of the National Exhibition Centre, into which Birmingham has put £30 million. It is true that it is a partnership with private enterprise and private industry. That enterprise has been successful, but its cost far exceeds any of the sums that are likely to be incurred under Part II.
There is a suggestion that huge sums of money will fall on the ratepayers and that these enterprises will be utterly unsuccessful and will lose money. It has also been said that they will be so profitable that they will chase private firms out of business and secure a monopoly situation. That is a load of nonsense. It is true that the powers in Part II are widely drawn, but the Committee upstairs, having heard the evidence, will consider whether it wishes to restrict those powers.
I understand the attitude of local authorities. They say "We are just like Parliament. We have been elected by universal adult suffrage. We are responsible to the electors. Why should we not have power to do what we think necessary for the good of our electors? Why should we be tried hand and foot at all times by this or that Act of Parliament? Why should we be creatures of the central legislature?" Even though I appreciate that view, I believe that matters of detail can be decided in Committee.
I should like to restrict the use of these powers to that which is for the benefit of the people of Birmingham and the West Midlands. Therefore, with the necessary amendments, I am prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill, knowing that any defects can be put right in Committee upstairs. That Committee will come to its decision having heard objections and having heard evidence on these matters.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: We have heard a serious indictment, although made by the Minister in the most disarming way, of one of the largest local authorities in


the country. The hon. Gentleman implied that the local authority had worked out the matter badly and should have appreciated that it was introducing provisions that would worry Parliament.
We are aware that highly-paid officials have been involved in the drafting of this legislation. We understand the political motives of the leaders of the West Midlands Council. They believe in Left-wing Socialism. But they surely should be guided to act in the right way when they bring legislation of this nature to Parliament. I believe that the Bill does not deserve to be given a Second Reading purely on the grounds of incompetence on the part of those who seek to bring forward this measure and who, indeed, have had the gall to put forward these provisions.
I know that the attitude of the promoters is "Please give us a Second Reading, and matters of detail can be settled in Committee." I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in voting against the measure. I believe that the council has forfeited its rights on this occasion. If it has some minor matters that it wishes to bring forward it can present another Bill, as other more sensible local authorities do, and it will be given just and fair consideration.
I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said that despite the Minister's assurances about the part of the Bill which troubles us—the local government trading powers—we should debate that part. It is a large Bill whose main ethos concerns the kind of trading which the West Midlands County Council wishes to carry out. I find it incomprehensible that any local authority, Socialist or otherwise, should bring forward proposals of this kind, particularly at a time when economies are being asked for on every hand in local government.
We know that local government has a voracious appetite which has arisen because of serious inflation, which is now adding to that appetite. We know that ratepayers are seriously overburdened and find it hard to meet the demands put upon them. If proposals such as are contained in the Bill are approved, there will be far heavier impositions. In many cases ratepayers will be paying for the salary increases of those in local

government who are now commanding higher salaries than those paid in the private sector.
There is the whole question of small businesses which Labour Members have tended to dismiss. This country was founded on the work of small businesses. It originally became great as a result of the entrepreneurial activity of many small businesses. To day many of those in such businesses are struggling to survive. They are harassed at every turn by bureaucrats. They are not looked on sympathetically by a Socialist Government and record numbers of them are going bankrupt.
It is of considerable significance that we should be debating this Bill tonight. I am glad it has been underlined that what happens now if the Bill is approved could easily happen throughout the rest of the country. Other local authorities would not be slow to follow, particularly if they had Left-wing inclinations. I am sorry that this has not been better publicised throughout the country. It has naturally had a great deal of exposure in the West Midlands, but there has been little publicity elsewhere.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have never had as many forceful letters on other subjects from traders in Aberdeen as I have received concerning this Bill? The traders object to the Bill as being abhorrent in principle. There are certainly objections from all parts of the country.

Mr. Smith: I am glad to hear that. For the public at large there has been little publicity in the media except in the West Midlands. This is an attempt to move towards the type of State uniformity that some Left-wing Members and many Left-wing people in local government would like to see. It is far more suitable for a second-rate Iron Curtain country than for a once-great nation like ours.
However much Labour Members may try to laugh this off, the proposals are there and are objected to, not only by us but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has said, by hundreds of people in the country who in many cases have no political affiliation and who in other cases have political affiliations different from mine. Labour Members have probably received the


same sort of letters as my hon. Friend referred to. There is anxiety among people about this trend. It is time we called "Enough" and told the West Midlands County Council to go back and think again. Although we hope that it will eventually be dealt with by the electorate, it ought now to be getting on with the job of local government rather than expanding its empire.
The West Midlands County Council stands condemned on a number of counts, irrespective of this move towards extreme Socialism, It has been engaged on an exercise which is a shocking waste of public money. This is a mish-mash of a Bill which must have cost a lot of money to prepare, to have printed and to be presented in Parliament at a time when local authorities should be economising.
I call in aid not a Tory but the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who is an Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment. Mr. Stanley Sparks, who has an enviable reputation for accuracy and who is the political correspondent of the Birmingham Evening Mail, wrote in his column a week or so ago:
Mr. Harold Walker, Junior Employment Minister, pulled no punches when he told the traders of his Doncaster constituency: 'This is an ill-judged hotch-potch of proposals which I cannot and will not support. This Bill can set a thoroughly bad precedent.'
I know that the hon. Member for Doncaster is a man of integrity. I am certain he will not be in the Lobby in favour of the Bill. I hope he might even join me in voting against it.
I condemn the West Midlands County Council for its complete insensitivity to public opinion. There has been no real consultation with traders or with the many people who have written about dogs and caravans, and certainly no consultation with politicians.
I call in aid again Stanley Sparks, who, as I have said, has a reputation for accuracy. He said in his column when writing about this issue:
When Sir Stan came to Westminster to talk to Tory and Labour M.P.s he found the Labour M.P.s more hostile than the Tories. He took such a battering that one M.P. had to remind the meeting they were all supposed to be Socialist comrades.
The reason was that with virtually no prior consultation, without seeing an advance draft,

without having any chance to examine the small print, the M.P.s were being asked to support a measure so vast and contentious that they knew it was beaten before it started.
What an indictment of the county council.
The council also stands condemned because the Bill would give it a very unfair advantage over established traders. The Walsall Co-operative Society has already been mentioned, and I would like to refer to another society a little nearer my own constituency. The secretary and chief executive officer of the Coventry and District Co-operative Society has written to me:
In our opinion, no local authority could compete fairly with other traders in view of its special position.… Retailing is a fiercely competitive business and consumers can shop where they wish. Co-operatives have always regarded themselves as a further source of protection for consumers generally and in view of this we regard the Part II proposals as superfluous. We invite you to oppose them.
I imagine that this society has a large number of Labour supporters among its members.
There has been general condemnation of what is perhaps one of the most controversial Private Bills to come before Parliament, certainly in the 13 or 14 years I have been here. It has very few friends. There are a large number of people throughout the West Midlands who do not want it. I do not want it and my hon. Friends do not want it. Caravan owners, dog owners and even people who are not in love with car racing do not want it. No one wants to move to the kind of collectivism being proposed in the Bill.
The message should go out from this House to Sir Stan and his cohorts that they should concentrate on improving local government and making it more efficient—goodness knows, it needs it badly enough—and stop meddling in areas which are not their concern. They should leave trade and commerce to the experts, who are finding it difficult enough anyway and who need support rather than a bash on the head from the county council.
Despite the Minister's bland assurances, I can see real dangers here. If the council, despite the condemnation it has received, refuses to withdraw the Bill, it deserves to have it defeated in the Lobby. I hope that it is slammed hard


as an example to other people who might venture into the same territory.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) referred to certain remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. My hon. Friend has denied making those remarks, he has complained to the editor of the local paper, and is contemplating taking the matter to the Press Council.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I accept what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says. I was quoting the words from a newspaper and I accepted them as being true.

Mr. Rooker: I cast no reflection on the Lobby correspondent of the Evening Mail, who is highly respected.
We have had four speeches from the Opposition Benches, only one of which was made by an hon. Member whose constituency is in the West Midlands County Council area. All hon. Gentlemen were talking about the "law of the land", "my area", "my traders", but the constituency of only one—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre)—is in that area. Anyone listening to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) might have thought that his constituency was in the West Midlands County Council area. His constituency may be in the West Midlands regional area, but it is not affected by the Bill.
The speech made by the right hon. Member for Wallsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) made me wonder whether we should seriously consider changes in our procedures whereby right hon. Members have precedence over others. For the right hon. Member to chastise the county council for not coming here to take advice when he was not in a position to give advice even if the county council had done so is a travesty.
Hon. Members talked about trading and had not a good word to say for it, apart from two of my hon. Friends. I wish to devote my remarks to Part III—and I have not a good word to say for that. That may be a paradox. My name is on the Order Paper as putting forward an instruction to the Commit-

tee to leave out Part III. It is not true to say that this is only a Birmingham matter. Two of my hon. Friends who support my motion represent Birmingham constituencies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), like myself, is a Birmingham ratepayer. Hon. Members representing areas as far apart as Coventry and Warley said that the fact that the Bill relates to Birmingham does not mean that they should not have a view. Their view was that they would not wish to inflict on someone else what they would not tolerate in their area. They are entitled to have a view, just as is any hon. Member who represents a Birmingham constituency.
I am not dogmatically opposed to the Grand Prix race; I am opposed to the proposals in Part III. The idea of such a race has been current in Birmingham for over four years. It originated from a night club owner in the city who was at one time an international racing driver. He has funds to support the race, there is an international consortium, and it will not cost the council anything. What riles me is that there has never been a jot of evidence sent to any hon. Member representing a Birmingham constituency about the proposed grand prix. The proposal has never been raised in meetings with the city leaders in the two years in which I have been in the House. It was only by accident last September that I discovered that the proposal was in the Bill.
Last summer I received letters from many chambers of trade. I got tired of saying that I had not seen the Bill. I wrote to the county council saying that Back Benchers could have a field-day on Private Business and suggested that we should get together. There was no such get-together, but eventually I received a typed draft of the Bill. That was the first time I was aware of the proposals for the race. Various Press references appeared concerned with the proposers, the night club owner and his buddies. The night club owner has always said that the race would only be on the May bank holiday or a bank holiday Monday, and that it would be an annual event.
In 1972 the Birmingham Chamber of Trade wrote to the former Town Clerk of Birmingham. He said that at a meeting of the council of the chamber of trade


a Mr. Martin Hone, the night club owner, had outlined the proposal for the race. The letter went on to talk about the race being organised on either the spring bank holiday Monday or the late summer bank holiday Monday. That was in 1972.
In 1975, to my surprise, I read a Birmingham Post headline which said
Motoring racing Bill on last lap.
Yet the Bill had not been published, and there had been no communication at all to any Members of Parliament. The report went on to say that the race would be staged on either the spring or autumn bank holiday.
I kept quiet, thinking that one day I should be able to read what was in the final draft, because it was obvious that the proposers had consulted the trade and business interests. But what is abundantly apparent is that no one else was consulted, least of all the people living on the proposed race circuit.
As recently as two weeks ago the secretary of the Birmingham Labour councillors, Councillor May—a very high-powered person—complained that his constituents had not been consulted. The race is to be in the city centre, not in my constituency—it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden)—and it is a city matter, not a constituency matter.
I have had letters from my constituents about their aged aunts of 86 and 68 who live in flats in tower blocks on the proposed circuit and do not know what is happening. No one has told them. Extreme concern is expressed by many people of that sort.
There are four churches on the proposed race circuit—two Church of England, one Roman Catholic and one belonging to the Plymouth Brethren. There has been no consultation whatever to inform them of what is to happen. Only by their own inquiries have they discovered that the streets are to be closed at 7 o'clock on the Saturday evening prior to the Monday race, and that they will be closed until midnight on Monday. They have been told officially that there will be no access to any of the four churches for public worship on the Sunday prior to the race. That is a very serious state of affairs, because

3,000 people normally attend those four churches on any average Sunday. There has been no consultation whatsoever with them. They have been told that everything will be all right, and that when the powers have been obtained they will be consulted. That is not the way in which to win the approval of Members of this House who have to give the powers in the first place.
The situation is even worse than that. Although the Bill gives power to close the roads only until midnight on the Monday, the churches have been told that the streets will not be clear until midday on Tuesday. That means that free access to the highway will not be available to people going to work and going about their lawful occasions on the Tuesday. That has not been taken into account in the Bill and has not been considered at all.
Another worrying aspect of the Bill is compensation, especially if the race were to become a regular event. Although we have heard about its being an annual event, the Bill is drafted in such a way as to give powers to run the race on both bank holidays, and in the schedule it is stated that the council can make an order to have the race on other days. According to the way the Bill is drafted, we could have a race every week.
If the race were an annual event—as the public were told it would be—it would not be possible to work out the cost of one year's race until the procedures for getting the next year's race under way had already been started. The time scale for putting in compensation claims extends for up to nine months after the race. There is a 10–15 weeks' lapse in regard to giving formal notice of closing the streets, and there can be an overlap.
In the Chamber on 15th December last, at the end of the debate on the rate support grant, I declared some opposition to this race. I had spent about 16 minutes in defending the Birmingham City Council and one minute in alluding to the race. I did not expect any thanks for defending the council, but I was viciously attacked for opposing what seemed to others to be a good idea but which I had not been informed about in any way.
I received a letter from the chief sponsor, Mr. Hone, the night club owner,


in which he told me about his experience. He said that the idea had been knocking around for four years, and that I, as a responsible Member representing the local community, ought to support it. He did not give a basis for that support but said that he had been a festival officer concerned with motor racing in Birmingham.
There was one illuminating paragraph in the letter:
My advice has been sought on many occasions by different departments of the District Council, the City Engineers Department, the Planning Department, the City Solicitors, the Chief Executive, Councillors from all parties and I have freely given of my time".
The letter does not say whether he had been giving advice about the race. I do not know what the city councillors have been trooping up to the night club owners to get advice about, but it poses more questions than it answers.
This is said to be an all-party matter in Birmingham, and there is therefore no one to speak for those who are opposed to the race. Some people say that there have been free votes in the city council, and others say that the Whips have been on. There is, however, no dispute that the Birmingham City Labour Party voted overwhelmingly to reject the race proposals.
The main cause of my concern arises over the financial aspects in Part III. They are a disgrace. The crux of the matter is that there are no financial provisions. It is no justification to say that because the ratepayers will not lose that can be the end of the matter. The way in which the Bill is drafted will allow the city council to license some person or persons to have the film and broadcasting rights and then to sell off the advertising rights, the rights to charge for admission and the rights to organise the powers of compensation. There is no mention of the way in which the accounts will be presented to the city council by the persons exercising these rights.
The city of Birmingham has a first-class record for municipal enterprise, going back to the days of Chamberlain. Nowadays it actually runs the catering on the Ascot race course, so that if it loses these powers I do not know what the clients of Ascot race course will do. The city is selling its case for hosting the Commonwealth Games through literature

which has been notably good. Why has it been so shy in publishing the financial arrangements behind the race?
It is worth bearing in mind that four city council departments are undergoing police investigation. In the past two years various members of different city council departments have been serving prison sentences for corrupt practices. One questions the efficacy of the drafting of the Bill because one presumes that it has been done under instruction from the city council. That aspect worries me and many others in the city.
The lack of consultation with those who are affected by the Bill and with those who are expected to approve of it—Members of Parliament—leads me to think that the people concerned will get greater benefit from it for themselves and their organisations than will the city. Their main principle seems to be that the less said about the Bill the better, and that it should go through on the nod. Like all other hon. Members, I am sure, I do not accept that approach. If given the opportunity, which I think I shall be denied, I shall seek to delete Part III of the Bill, for the reasons I have out-lined.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I was asked by the Minister to consider whether I might be able to support the Bill if Part II was withdrawn in order that it might at least get a Second Reading. I was prepared to consider such a course, but having listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) I believe that the Bill should be opposed. It must be defeated because there are so many other things wrong with it.
My constituency is, of course, not directly affected by the Bill, but concern about it is very widespread and has certainly been expressed on the Isle of Wight. I am a Kidderminster man and I was brought up in the West Midlands. I frequently go back to Birmingham. A relation of mine works in the Birmingham City Council.
Part II of the Bill is absolute madness, particularly when small traders have such troubles and such small profit margins. Why Birmingham wants to run hotels, Heaven knows. I thought that we had excess capacity at the moment. A


butcher's shop is the quickest way there is of losing money. I bet that Coventry loses money on its abbatoir. Horticulture has many problems at the moment. The most efficient horticulture in the country is in my constituency, but some firms are facing bankruptcy.
I had thought that motor racing was a matter best decided locally, but having heard what has been said I believe that it would be wrong to support that proposal.
I have some sympathy with the provisions relating to dogs. I know the problems here. I have just moved into a town house and I pepper the lamp-post outside every night because I am so fed up with their visits. Some legislation is needed, but this is too bureaucratic. The Government should take action. For a start, we should have a sensible licence fee, with exemptions for old-age pensioners and others.
Part V, relating to provisions about aircraft and traffic noise, is excellent and should be supported. In Part VI, Clause 43 is about the best thing in the Bill, extending the council's powers over property outside conservation areas which is about to be demolished. I have been fighting such problems in my constituency for many a long day.
I cannot support the Bill. The council is ill-advised to bring it forward. Did it not consult the Department? When my authority brought forward a Bill, the Home Office told us what was likely to be acceptable to the House and what was not. We withdrew the controversial parts and got the rest through. That is what the West Midlands County Council should have done. Because it has not, the Bill should be defeated overwhelmingly.

9.22 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: Since I have been a Member of the House it has been a constant surprise to me to find that, whenever a measure extends opportunities for entrepreneurial activity and competition, Opposition Members are dead against it. I had been led to believe that that was something the Tory Party stood for. Whenever it is suggested that such activity might encompass a degree of public or municipal enterprise, suddenly it is no longer enterprise but, for some extraordinary

reason, "unfair competition". That phrase has been bandied about tonight by Tory Members.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) gave a long list of objections in explaining why this will be so good for the local authority that it will represent unfair competition. What he did not say was who will benefit from all these advantages. The people who will benefit are his ratepayers, for goodness sake, not individual councillors and officers. So that it is not a valid objection to the principle of the Bill.
What we are talking about is the principle of municipal trading. I accept entirely what the Minister said. His comments on Clauses 7 and 10 are well taken, but they are Committee points. In a Second Reading debate on a Bill of this kind we are trying to establish the principle of the Bill. I have for many years been in favour of the principle of municipal trading and enterprise. We have co-operative enterprises, private enterprises and State enterprises. I should have thought that this proposal would broaden the scope of those services and enterprises which can be put at the service of the public. I see no objection to it.
Some municipal enterprises such as transport seem logical activities for a municipality because it is in the best position to know what is the best form of local transport and, therefore, to undertake it. The idea that passing the Bill will mean suddenly and completely sweeping away every other form of enterprise in the West Midlands is one of the most extraordinary things I have ever heard.
I think it would be remarkable if in the next five years the West Midlands County Council did no more than develop those facilities which it already has and which can be used for the benefit of the ratepayers of the West Midlands. The Bill seems to me to be an excellent idea, and it is remarkable that Tory Members think that it is a bad Bill.
If we are to have more efficient local government—we have heard a lot tonight from hon. Members opposite about lack of efficiency in local government—one thing which makes it efficient is the maximisation of its facilities. There is no doubt that these facilities are not always maximised, and there are many


aspects of the Bill which seem to provide an excellent way of developing that sort of enterprise within the West Midlands and, indeed, within all other municipalities.
I urge hon. Members opposite to forget about all these hostages to fortune which have been put into the Bill. It is, after all, a portmanteau Bill. As has been said by one of my hon. Friends, local authorities do not often get the chance to introduce a Private Bill, and when they do get the chance they are advised to pack everything into it.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: 1 accept that what we are discussing is a vital point of principle, but is not the reason why we have this portmanteau Bill the advice given by the Secretary of State to local authorities that they should take into account all the views of their district councils and include in their Bills a summary of those views?

Dr. Phipps: Yes, I accept the point. My own district council, the Dudley District Council, rejected for its own purposes a number of elements in it. On the other hand, there are other aspects of the Bill of which the district council would like to take advantage. It is inevitably a portmanteau Bill. However, these are matters with which we can deal in Committee.
There is only one other aspect on which I should like to touch and that is car racing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred so heatedly. I have never been a motor car racing fan. It seems to me to be a decadent activity. I have never been to watch it and I do not particularly like it. I have always thought that activities like mountain climbing and all the rest of those things which ex-public schoolboys now have to do because they no longer rule the Empire are not really sufficient reason for risking one's life in order to give it value, which is basically what people who drive racing cars do.
However, the matter has arisen in Birmingham because of the unique nature of the inner ring road, and this is how the idea of having a car race arose. To anyone who drives on the ring road it is rather like a car race. Once I am on it, I never seem to know how to get off it. I accept that the inconvenience

caused in the centre of Birmingham by a car race would be minimal. Anyone who goes to Birmingham city centre during the weekend finds it a windswept waste in which there are very few people indeed. I am therefore not personally opposed to the idea if this is what Birmingham people like. Where I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is that this matter has to be put much more directly to the people of Birmingham if they are to have the race, but I do not think we ought to cut this out of the Bill on Second Reading.
Therefore, in supporting the Bill I appeal in particular to my hon. Friends to give to their own colleagues in the West Midlands area an opportunity to have this Private Bill, portmanteau or not, put before the Private Bill Committee in order that these matters can be argued. We should develop this fresh idea. It is something new. I should have thought that a municipal activity broadening the scope of enterprises offered to the public at large would merit the support of everybody on this side of the House.

9.30 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: To date I have received 55 letters on the Bill, plus submissions from groups like the Business and Professional Women, the co-ops and the chambers of trade and commerce. Every one of them has been against the Bill. I also have a petition which is signed by 1,050 people of all political parties who strongly oppose the Bill. Some of the protesters object to the intended regulations on caravans and some to those relating to dogs. The vast majority object to the monstrous proposals to use ratepayers' money to engage in municipal trading.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) has totally missed the point about the Bill's purpose. Not only is it immoral to take a man's money and set up in competition against him—even robber barons, "Rachmen", highwaymen and the Mafia never stooped as low as that—it is not part of a local authority's function to provide the great British public with facilities for buying peas, pears, petrol, pork, printing, patty-cakes, powder, skis, running trunks or even little bits of china marked "A present from Smallbrook Ringway".
Ratepayers also object to being compelled to invest in commercial ventures which are not of their choosing. Objection is also taken to the blank cheque borrowing powers. However, there are far more objections than there is time to list them in the House this evening.
Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) I want to refer to Part III of the Bill and the suggestion that a grand prix should be held in Birmingham's city centre. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr was right; there has not been the smallest attempt to inform or consult those who are affected by the proposals, thousands of whom are my constituents. There has been no public debate whatever, and although it may be true that both the Conservative and Labour chiefs on the West Midlands County Council agreed, neither of them lives adjacent to the area which would be used as the race track. I am no spoilsport, but it is not right to inflict such great inconvenience and suffering on ordinary people for the pleasures of the minority.
On the Saturday before the great race armies will move into the area and set up protective equipment, seats, pay booths and other such equipment. On that Saturday, work in the city is bound to be severely restricted and affected. On the Sunday there will be no possibility of anyone attending the church that they support if it happens to be in the city centre. It would be quite wrong to pass a regulation that meant that people could not attend their church.
Noise levels during the race would be immense. The noise of cars travelling at well over 100 mph underneath part of the freeway that runs through the city centre would bounce back from the walls. Recently a motor festival was held in the city. The noise level at that festival went far beyond the pain threshold and a decibel limit of 120 was recorded. It broke the existing pollution and nuisance laws.

Dr. Phipps: Concorde.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Member for Dudley, West may say "Concorde", but there has been a deal of fuss already about the noise Concorde makes. It is all very well for him and for any other hon. Member to inflict that suffering on other people, but, like the hon. Member

for Perry Barr, I am concerned about those people who live near the race track.
Thousands of people would enter the city for the race. If they did not, the race would not pay. Therefore, not only would Saturday and Sunday be affected—because the race would continue throughout Sunday—but on Monday and Tuesday the armies would move in to remove the equipment that was erected on Saturday. Therefore, four days would be involved and the upset would affect my constituents and others who go into the city centre.
There would be tremendous parking problems for people coming in to see the racing. Where would visitors stay? I have in my hand a letter from a constituent of mine, a lady aged 74, who lives in a council tower block. She says that she is very worried. She does not think that all of the people coming to see the racing will be of good character. She asks where they will sleep. She says that during the period in which the racing is on she fears that the lifts and floors of her tower block will be used for sleeping and will be fouled.
That elderly lady has a perfect right to be allowed to live in peace and not to be upset by these proposals. There would undoubtedly be great danger to elderly people and to children.
I am concerned also about that part of the Bill which states that certain attachments can be placed on any dwelling adjacent to the race track. It states,
Where attachments are affixed to a building under this subsection the Birmingham Council shall have the right as against any person having an interest in the building to alter or remove them, or to repair or maintain them".
I have had a lot of trouble with the council concerning constituents who want to put up notices on their premises—mainly shops and offices—and have not been allowed to do so. Under this clause attachments would be put on their property and they would have no rights in the matter whatever. This is a monstrous suggestion.
It is an incredibly stupid and unfeeling idea to propose running a grand prix in the centre of a city like Birmingham, and it will not work. I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of people who live adjacent to a race


track of the kind proposed. If it were proposed that a race track be built outside any of their houses I am sure that they would object—very reasonably so. This most unfeeling idea must be stopped. There are other tracks. It is rumoured that Castle Donington is soon to reopen. There is no case whatever for my constituents to be so upset and incommoded by what the Bill suggests.

9.37 p.m.

Sir Thomas Williams: Those who have proposed the Bill have done so in most moderate terms. I welcome many of the provisions that are concerned with improvement of life and of local government in the West Midlands. It is this that makes it very difficult for me to understand upon what principle it has been thought right to introduce the provisions contained in Part II.
Criticism has mainly been directed—although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has introduced another somewhat disquieting factor—against the provisions in Part II. I cannot but feel that if it had not been for Part II the Bill would have stood an extremely good chance of going through the House tonight without opposition. The insistence, however, of including Part II has resulted in strong opposition not only from within the House but also from many organisations and individuals outside it.
Already about 27 petitions have been presented against Part II, and many thousands of people have expressed their opposition to it. Indeed, it is interesting to observe that those in opposition include some statutory authorities that not primarily affected by the Bill's provisions, such as the British Gas Corporation, the Severn-Trent Water Authority, the Midlands Electricity Board and the Post Office.
In addition, one finds it difficult to understand how the promoters of the Bill have been persuaded to force this matter through in a Bill having so many other commendable features. It has been apparent to the promoters over a very long period that not only those who might traditionally be expected to oppose it but even many of those who are its friends have been taken into the ranks of those

who oppose. I am a member of the Co-operative Group of Members of Parliament. The co-operative movement throughout the length and breadth of the land sees the Bill as a pathfinder to a way of life to which it is opposed.
The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has long since made plain to the promoters of the Bill its hostility on grounds that are very reasonable and not in any way factious.
Hon. Members have referred to the fears and anxieties that have been expressed by the members of USDAW and by the co-operative movement, both of whom, in their own way, seek to serve the public interest. In view of the shortness of time I shall not repeat those arguments. I shall merely say that by insisting upon introducing this aspect of the Bill and refusing either to compromise or to consult those whose interests are in many senses comparable with their own, the promoters of the Bill have placed those of us in the Co-operative Group of Members of Parliament and the USDAW Group of Members in a position in which we cannot support the Bill. If it were possible for us to support the Bill on the basis suggested by the Minister in his moderate and persuasive speech, we would so so.
However, we have considered the situation that would be created if we gave a Second Reading to the Bill, with much of whose contents we have a good deal of sympathy. We believe, having considered the matter, that the clauses in Part II have been so widely drawn that it would not be possible for a special Committee of the House to amend the Bill so that these clauses could be substantially altered. This is a matter of which the promoters have been warned. We are unable to support the Bill, but the responsibility for that must rest with those who, for whatever reasons—political or otherwise—have determined to pursue these clauses when they could have obtained the substantial measures they wanted if they had been prepared to compromise on this aspect.
Those of us who take this view are accused of being hysterical by our opposition. It is said that the policy of municipal trading has been so widely developed that it is unreasonable for those of us who take this view to object to the powers sought under what might


be called the general powers of the Bill to develop.
It must be understood that Clauses 5 to 13, which are the clauses about which we are most anxious, give Draconian powers of compulsory purchase, powers relating to planning, powers relating to the acquisition of undeveloped land under the Community Land Act, wide powers of investment and association, powers to borrow without the consent of the Secretary of State, and powers to deal with profits earned without saying what is to be done if there are losses. They are of such serious consequence that once granted, even though they might be used sensibly and fairly by those who now seek the powers, they empower succeeding local authorities to act in the manner that I have described.
These are matters of great concern, and because it is impossible to amend the Bill in the special Committee in the way the Minister suggested, those who feel as I do will be unable to support the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: The debate has been one of the most remarkable I have listened to in the five and a half years I have been a Member of the House. I have been sitting here since we began discussions and I think I am right to say that, apart from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), there has been no support for the main part of the Bill from either side of the House. Our victory tonight in defeating the Bill will be almost embarrassing in its proportions. This, however, is an occasion when the House of Commons uses its collective wisdom.
The Bill must be one of the most extraordinary to have come before the House. It must have been conceived by people who are entirely unpractical and unaware of the ways of the world. It must have been drafted by those with no knowledge of what is appropriate in a Private Bill. I think it is a matter of great indignity for the city of Birmingham because of the area's size and importance in the country.
We are discussing the Bill at a time when, unfortunately, all local government is under a cloud and is being criticised

for inefficiency, overstaffing and extravagance. The bare effrontery of bringing forward the Bill at a time when the Government are urging economy upon us all is almost beyond belief. The long-suffering ratepayers of the West Midlands want strict economy from their local authority, not a mad rush into matters for which the authority is unprepared, untrained and totally inexperienced.
The West Midlands is the most famous manufacturing area in England and 1 can assure the House, from the large correspondence I have had, that the Bill is offensive to manufacturers and traders. In the last 10 years local authority manpower has risen by 34 per cent. while manpower in manufacturing industry, which produces the wealth of the country, has declined by 7·3 per cent. Local authority spending has increased by about 55 per cent. in the same period.
My constituents feel strongly that further expenditure as envisaged by the Bill would be dangerous and highly irresponsible. Except for the great debate about our entry into the EEC and the dreadful Birmingham bombings, I have had more letters of protest about the Bill than on any other subject since I came to the House.
To add insult to injury, the council proposes to take powers to trade in an incredibly wide field with ratepayers' money, or with money borrowed on more favourable terms than a private firm or individual could obtain. It proposes to go into competition with ordinary business. Protests have poured in from all kinds of people.
The Bill appears to be State Socialism gone mad. The arrogance of the council is almost beyond belief. If municipal trading was allowed on the scale proposed, it would bankrupt many ordinary businesses and ruin many ratepayers. The commercial activities which are provided by the councils, such as building and maintenance, are notoriously less efficient than those of private enterprise. The West Midlands County Council simply does not have the outlook of the entrepreneur or the manpower.
When I think of the livelihood of hundreds of ordinary hardworking people in my constituency which is threatened by the Bill, I wonder what has happened to affairs in this country. These good


people deserve something better from those who are supposed to be their servants.
The Bill also gravely threatens individual liberty, not only in the highly dangerous provisions for the mad scheme of motor racing in the middle of Birmingham but also in the highly involved and expensive proposals about dogs and for severe limitations on the parking of caravans in private gardens. The Bill, I believe, is nothing but pettifogging interference with people's private lives, and I have had many protests about these clauses also. I trust that the Bill will be thrown out as the absurd monstrosity that it is.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Geoff Edge: I welcome the Bill. I think that it has attracted more hysterical criticism than anything I can remember since I became a Member of Parliament. There are times when Parliament slips towards a political gutter, and I think that the opposition to the Bill has plumbed virtually every gutter in the country.
There is a basic distrust of the people in local government—of those who work their guts out voluntarily to run local authorities—and if the House refuses to give the Bill a Second Reading we are really saying that we refuse to trust the people in local government—not only Labour but Conservative and Independent councillors. I believe that local government people have had more than a rough time and a bad Press. They deserve more credit for the difficult job they have been trying to do in very astringent financial circumstances. They deserve a measure of trust from the House, and one measure of that trust would be to give the Bill a Second Reading.
The Bill is supported by the district councils and the County Council of the West Midlands, representing in total 2 million people. I do not think that the views of the elected representatives of 2 million people should be cast lightly aside.
I want to concentrate on two aspects. First, there is the question of municipal trading. It is possible for a local authority to engage in municipal trading at a profit. I am a member of one which does

precisely that. What is more, it is a policy supported not only by Labour members of the council but by Conservatives and Independents as well. It is an apolitical policy on the part of the council, with a desire to supplement, by trading, its rate revenue, and as such it is supported not only by all members of the council but by all members of the community, because they realise that if we are serious in asking local government to broaden the base of its revenue and that rates should not keep rising we have to give local government the opportunity of raising money elsewhere.
It is hypocritical of hon. Members opposite to say that they are so opposed to increases in rates when we have here a measure that could increase the potential revenue of local authorities. It is an example of the double standard that we have come to expect from hon. Members opposite. The Bill simply proposes to extend local authority activities in municipal trading purely as an ancillary to what they do now. If they produce a surplus of horticultural products, the Bill would enable them to sell it. Do hon. Members opposite want them to throw such a surplus into the dustbin? Is that good housekeeping for a local authority to practise?
What kind of illogical argument is that? It is an Alice-in-Wonderland argument. One cannot, on the one hand, argue to increase local authority revenues and, on the other, turn down legislation that will permit a local authority to sell off its surpluses in order to be able to reduce its rates.
My own local authority, with a population of 60,000, receives a revenue of £40,000 a year simply from its catering activities. The scope offered by the Bill through a modest extension of council activities is enormous. Therefore, I believe that those who oppose the Bill are misguided.
We have heard from those who have spoken on behalf of the co-operative movement. I come from a co-operative family. My father was a co-op manager for many years. I have never been so disgusted at the attitude of the co-operative movement as it has been displayed in the House tonight. Of course the Bill is not intended to drive retailers or co-ops out of work; it is simply an attempt by


a local authority to extend its trading activities to sell off surpluses. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that the Bill's provisions will lead to a wholesale bankrupting of businesses.
We have heard a good deal of opposition from those who fear that these provisions will affect the rights of those who have caravans. Again, that opposition is illogical. If those hon. Members read the town and country planning Regulations they will find that there are already extensive controls covering modifications of property. Of course we want to protect the environment so that there is no drop in standards. It is surely illogical to seek to control brick-built extensions and not to control the siting of large vehicles. A person's environment can be ruined if a caravan or large vehicle is parked outside his premises on an almost permanent basis.
Clause 45 of the Bill is intended to prevent any violations of the environment. It is not intended to ban caravan rallies in the West Midlands. Surely the powers will not extend as far as Wales or Shrop-

shire. The clause seeks to prevent the fouling up of the environment by the parking of large vans or caravans on frontages. The power will be used only in limited cases. The amount of hysteria generated over Clause 45 only shows the extent of distortion to which the Bill's opponents are prepared to go.

I believe that the Bill offers great opportunities for the people of the West Midlands through their elected representatives to run their own affairs more efficiently and to take the powers which they believe to be right. They seek to attain administrative efficiency for their electorate——

Mr. Park: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 268.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Park, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Flannery, Martin
Parker, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Pendry, Tom


Bates, Alf
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Perry, Ernest


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Forrester, John
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler[...], Gerald (The Wrekin)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Booth, Albert
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
George, Bruce
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Canavan, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Les
Silverman, Julius


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Snape, Peter


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemitson, Ivor
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kerr, Russell
Strang, Gavin


Cohen, Stanley
Lambie, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lee, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tierney, Sydney


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Litterick, Tom
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McCartney, Hugh
Ward, Michael


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Madden, Max
Watkins, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mahon, Simon
Watkinson, John


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dempsey, James
Maynard, Miss Joan
White, James (Pollock)


Dormand, J. D.
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Dunnett, Jack
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Woof, Robert


Edge, Geoff
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Faulds, Andrew
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Awdry, Daniel


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Tom
Baker, Kenneth


Alison, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Banks, Robert




Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, John (Harrow W)


Benyon, W.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pardoe, John


Biffen, John
Havers, Sir Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pattie, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Penhaligon, David


Body, Richard
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Percival, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brittan, Leon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rathbone, Tim


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hurd, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Carson, John
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Churchill, W. S.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kilfedder, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cockcroft, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sainsbury, Tim


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cordle, John H.
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Corrie, John
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Critchley, Julian
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Crowder, F. P.
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jame
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Drayson, Burnaby
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCusker, H.
Spence, John


Dunlop, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stanley, John


Emery, Peter
Madel, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Freud, Clement
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mitchell, Davild (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Townsend, Cyril D


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moonman, Eric
Tugendhat, Christopher


Glyn Dr Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint
Viggers, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wakeham, John


Gorst John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Nelson, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Gray, Hamish[...]
Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Griffiths, Eldon
Newton, Tony
Weatherill, Bernard


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nott, John
Wells, John


Grylls, Michael

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William







Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as custodian of the rights of Back Benchers, to take into consideration the rules applying to the passage of Private Business through the House? It is clear that an unprecedented happening has occurred inasmuch as for the first time in the recollection of almost every hon. Member the official Opposition have applied a Whip to the passage of private legislation. Is it within your powers, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of the rights of Members and as the guiding eminence to the Chairman of Ways and Means, to advise the Chairman of Ways and Means to take into account the circumstances of his disgraceful intervention of party politics into the passage of private legislation?

Mr. Speaker: I thought it only fair to let the hon. Gentleman have his say, but Providence protects me from interfering in such matters.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order come out of the time for the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Clegg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether you would perhaps invite the Patronage Secretary to illuminate us on the present position.

Mr. Speaker: This is coming out of the Adjournment time.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that earlier this evening the Opposition achieved by accident what they failed to achieve by design yesterday—[Interruption.]—in that the vote on this occasion was on a private——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Whip has nothing to do with the Chair.

CHILDREN OF GOD CULT

10.16 p.m.

Mr. John Hunt: I am very glad to have the opportunity of raising tonight a matter which has been of great concern to me for more than three years and which I have raised repeatedly since October 1972, both by means of parliamentary Questions and in correspondence with the Home Office. I refer to the activities of a sect calling themselves the Children of God.
I am bound to say that in my view the response of the Home Office—and, indeed, of the Metropolitan Police—to the representations from myself and many others on this matter has been one of general complacency and indifference.
The activities of this sect were first brought to my attention at my advice service in Bromley in October 1972. At that time the sect had established its headquarters in Bromley, and I began to receive many complaints about the strange teachings of the sect and about the mystery leader, Mr. David Berg, who goes under the name of Moses and distributes letters and pamphlets to what he calls his communes. These letters and pamphlets bear little resemblance to the teaching of Christianity and are in some cases blatantly pornographic.
I have also been concerned about the way in which the young people were recruited into this sect and, once they were in, deliberately alienated from their parents, from the Church and from society itself.
I am told that new converts are made to sign a document under which they promise
to give all my goods and income, to let you open my mail and to obey rules and officers.
It is not surprising, therefore, that young people, particularly those with wealthy parents or, better still, with a private income of their own, are of particular interest to the sect.
There is evidence, too, that teenagers in a depressed or unbalanced state of mind—perhaps because of the pressure of examinations or of some domestic conflict—are also particularly vulnerable to the approaches from the Children of God.
On 22nd October 1972 I wrote to the then Home Secretary, and in a reply dated 30th November 1972 my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, and who was at that time Minister of State, Home Office—told me:
Although the way of life of the Bromley commune may be thought unorthodox, local police have found no evidence to substantiate allegations that the organisation has been guilty of any breach of the criminal law.
He went on to say, referring to powers under the Aliens Order:
There do not seem sufficient grounds for using these powers generally to prevent the admission to this country of adherents of the Children of God cult, but their activities will be kept under review and the Immigration Rules will be enforced to deny entry to any individuals who are considered by the immigration officer to be personally undesirable.
A few days later I was told, in reply to another parliamentary Question, that over 150 aliens had been permitted to enter the United Kingdom in connection with the Children of God movement in 1972. In December 1974 I was told that up to that date no one had been either refused admission or deported on the ground of membership of the Children of God sect. Yet in spite of the mounting evidence of the undesirable activities of these people, and the heartbreaking accounts from parents whose children had been abducted into this sect, nothing was done.
Let me quote just three letters from the scores I was receiving in 1974. One letter was from Swindon and it said:
My son, who is 15, has been under their influence for about two years and as a result is very unhappy and at times almost deranged.
Another letter, from Clapham, said
In May of this year my brother suddenly and mysteriously left his job and disappeared leaving us (his parents and five brothers and sisters) not knowing where he had gone or what had happened to him.
It went on to say:
Since he joined this community he has been completely cut off from, not only us, but all his friends; in fact he has rejected us all and seems to have become quite a different person.
A letter from Dorking said
My 18 year old daughter recently out of a convent public school, was picked up by the Children of God at Victoria and taken to a house and disco club in Pimlico. She was at that time—in July—being treated by a psychiatrist for adolescent depression and was in a most suggestible state.


The letter continued:
Her total rejection of the love of her friends and family, and particularly the rejection of her 8 year old sister, is a cruelty which she would not normally be capable of doing, let alone wanting to do.
All this indicates the degree of family distress caused by what I would call these disciples of dissension and deceit.
At about that time in September 1974 the Attorney-General of the State of New York published a revealing and disturbing report on the activities of the Children of God which included documented allegations of rape, kidnapping and brainwashing. In the light of that report I asked our own Attorney-General whether he would institute his own inquiry into their activities in this country. On 19th June last year he again refused to do so. Subsequently, however, the Home Secretary decided—and I welcomed his action, however belated—to ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to inquire into the activities of the sect in the United Kingdom. This investigation was completed last October.
In a Written Answer to me the Under-Secretary of State said:
It is not, of course, for us to express a view on whether the activities of this group are or are not desirable. Their activities concern the police only in so far as it is necessary to consider whether criminal offences may have been committed by anyone in pursuance of those activities; and they concern my right hon. Friend in so far as it is necessary to consider whether they should affect the exercise of immigration control over people connected with the group. The inquiries disclose no present grounds for further action."—[Official Report, 16th October 1975; Vol. 897, c. 753–4.]
The use of the word "further" in that context implied that there had already been action. But, apart from the investigation which was set up, nothing had been done. It is of this protracted inactivity on the part of the Home Office that I am complaining tonight.
The point I want to put strongly is this. Bearing in mind the American leadership of the Children of God, if the sect operating in the United Kingdom were to be deprived of the presence of those American leaders it would, in my estimation, very quickly wilt and wither away.
I should like to know how many American citizens are currently holding work permits to enable them to operate

in this country with the Children of God and why those permits cannot be revoked or, at least, not renewed. I submit that working with the Children of God can hardly be classified as gainful employment. I contend that the American leaders of the sect are undesirable aliens and that the people of this country, particularly the young people, would be well rid of these religious charlatans.
Admittedly, the indications are that the operations of the sect in this country are now contracting, but I see no reason why we should not help to accelerate that process. The signs are that many of its activities are now being transferred to the Continent and that many of the young people currently being recruited into the Children of God in this country are promptly shipped over to Europe to join there one of the communes, or colonies as they are called. I hope that, if that is so, European Governments are being alerted to the activities of these people and that Interpol will be on the watch for them.
The growth of the Children of God in recent years in this country and elsewhere illustrates how gullible and immature young people can be persuaded to join a sect of this kind, of highly dubious motives and objectives. I believe that it is our duty to protect people from this kind of religious confidence trick and to warn their parents and themselves against these people. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance to the parents of these people and to me. I await her reply with great interest.

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I am glad that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) has taken this opportunity to raise the question of the activities of the Children of God cult in the United Kingdom. This is a question in which he has taken a considerable interest, and I appreciate his concern about the disturbing allegations which have been made about the cult.
The group known as the Children of God was founded in 1968 in the United States of America. Its founder is a man named David Berg, otherwise known as


Moses. It is a self-styled youth evangelistic movement, which subsequently set up branches in such diverse countries as Mexico, Japan and Australia. Like other cults of American origin, it also crossed the Atlantic and became established here, though the number of its members in this country is not thought to have ever exceeded 200 or 300. I understand that members live in small communities or "families", run by "elders" who are often American.
There have been reports that converts are required to hand over their possessions and money to the group, and members do not continue in outside employment. One of the cult's main sources of income appears to come from the sale of literature, about which I shall speak more fully later. Members of the cult are believed to live an austere existence based on the cult's interpretation of the teachings of the New Testament. Life in the communities involves intensive study of the New Testament and all members adopt biblical names. It would appear that contact with non-believers in the sect is discouraged. Throughout the teachings and practice of the cult, it is apparent that the founder, David Berg, exerts a considerable influence.
The organisation has a respectable face. Its stated aims are
to advance the Christian religion…particularly amongst the poor, sick, drug addicts and those who resort to taking drugs, vagrants, beggars and social outcasts".
But the activities of the cult have also given rise to concern among some of those who have come into contact with it. The hon. Member has explained some of the reasons for this concern. In particular, a number of complaints have been made by parents that their children who have joined the cult have become alienated from them; and the literature produced by the group is regarded in some quarters as offensive and obscene.
The complaints concern different authorities. First, there is the question of breaches of the criminal law; it is for the police to investigate any complaint which amounts to an allegation that a criminal offence has been committed. Second, there is the question of the organisation's charitable status: this is a matter for the Charity Commission rather than the Home Secretary, who has no responsibility for

the day-to-day work of the Commissioners or for their handling of individual cases. Since I have some developments to report on the cult's charitable status—which will, no doubt, be of interest to the House—I shall deal with that aspect first before going on to the police aspects.
The cult was entered in the Central Register of Charities on 5th April 1974. I should make it clear that inclusion in the register does not indicate that the Charity Commissioners approve the objects of an organisation. Provided that its articles are charitable in law, the Commissioners are obliged under the provisions of the Charities Act 1960 to register it. Under the Act, however, the Commissioners also have an obligation to ensure, as far as they are able, that charitable funds are applied to the charitable purpose. In this connection they asked the Children of God in 1975 to withdraw a number of their leaflets which, in the view of the Commissioners, were not in furtherance of the organisation's charitable purpose and about which they had received a number of complaints.
Early this year the Commissioners were informed through the organisation's solicitors that the majority of its members had now gone on missionary service overseas and that, due to the greatly reduced size of its membership, the organisation felt incapable of carrying on the administrative work of a charity and no longer regarded itself as a charity. Accordingly, in January the Commissioners notified the organisation's representative that the Children of God had been removed from the register of charities and reminded her of the obligation to supply the Commissioners with the accounts of the charity up to the date of the removal showing how any balance of assets had been dealt with. Therefore, on the basis of this information, it would seem that the activities of the cult in this country have been, and will be, considerably curtailed.

Mr. Hunt: Before the hon. Lady leaves that point, can she say whether those accounts have been supplied to the Charity Commissioners, or are they still waiting for the accounts?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member that information at the moment, but I shall write and let him know whether the accounts have


been submitted or whether they are being examined by the Charity Commissioners.
I come now to the police aspects. With regard to the complaints of alienation, there have been, as the hon. Member said, distressing instances, a number of which have been brought to the attention of the Home Office, where young people have joined the Children of God and, as a result, have left their home, given up their possessions, abandoned their careers and refused to keep in touch with their parents, regarding them as non-believers. It has been claimed that the sect itself deliberately fosters feelings of hatred towards families and former friends. There have even been allegations that converts who subsequently become disillusioned are prevented from returning home. Confronted with sudden changes in attitudes in children whom they formerly believed they knew well, parents have feared that brainwashing techniques have been employed.
I should like to make it plain that I have every sympathy with parents whose children become estranged from them in these circumstances. I can quite appreciate their distress. However, I must point out that in the majority of cases involving the Children of God brought to the notice of the Home Office the young people involved have been 18 years old or more. Distressing as it may be, these young people are adults who have the right to choose to live their own life; and, respite the allegations of threats, inducements, coercion and abduction, I am not aware of any case where such criminal activities have come to light. If any hon. Member, or any constituent, considers that he has such evidence, I ask him to bring it to the attention of the police so that it can be properly investigated.
As regards the cult's literature, there have been complaints that it is indecent, obscene, racialist and subversive. It is true that the contents of the organisation's pamphlets present a startling contrast to other publications sold as Christian literature. The language often seems crude and the tone spiteful and aggressive. There have been two prosecutions of members for selling indecent literature, but I understand that it is not considered to date that the pamphlets

provide grounds for prosecution as being obscene or contravening the Race Relations Acts.
The collection of money or sale of articles for charitable and other purposes, in the street or other public place, is subject to regulations made by local licensing authorities under the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916. These regulations apply to any, collection or sale of articles, except for the normal purposes of trade, whether or not the organisation to benefit is charitable in law. In 1974 and the early part of 1975 a number of cases of unauthorised street collections on behalf of the Children of God were reported to the Metropolitan Police and there were several convictions for such unauthorised street collections in the Metropolitan Police District. Again, it is open to any member of the public to draw the attention of the police to any alleged offence.
Apart from those minor offences, despite the complaints received there has been no evidence that the organisation has been involved in criminal activities in this country.
However, in the autumn of 1974 there were disturbing reports in the Press of a report which had been made by the Charity Frauds Bureau to the Attorney-General of New York about the activities of the cult in the United States. The report pieced together information from a number of sources and contained allegations of criminal offences such as rape, brainwashing, kidnapping and forgery. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to establish the extent to which it was considered by the American authorities that the allegations were proved and would result in criminal proceedings, and to establish whether there was any evidence of similar criminal activities in this country.
As the hon. Member pointed out, the ensuing investigation took several months and it was not until October last that I was able to report, in reply to his Question, that the Commissioner had completed his inquiries. He had informed my right hon. Friend that it was understood that there were to be no prosecutions in the United States and that inquiries in this country had not produced any evidence of criminal activities here. The


inquiries therefore disclosed no grounds for action by the police, and this remains the position today. I repeat, however, that if any hon. Member or any member of the public has evidence, he should certainly submit it to the police for investigation.
I now come to the point about immigration that the hon. Member raised. There are no special immigration restrictions imposed on the Children of God. They are dealt with as individuals under the Immigration Rules in the same way as other foreigners and no special difficulties have arisen. On the evidence at present available, the Government are not satisfied that the case has been made out for immigration restrictions on the movement.
As regards the number of members, for which the hon. Member asked, I do not have specific numbers in relation to American citizens—which I think was his question—but the number of foreign members of the sect believed to be in the United Kingdom at present is about 50.
I am aware that this reply will be a disappointment to the hon. Member, who would appear to have been pressing for

some curtailment of the cult's activities which would presumably be achieved by some change in the law to make membership of the sect illegal. I do not wish to criticise those who exert such pressure. I know they do so from the best of motives. This country, however, is rightly proud of its traditions of freedom of speech and expression. I do not think that anyone in this House would wish to see those freedoms unnecessarily curtailed.
I accept that we must protect those who are vulnerable. However, we must also allow each other the freedom of choice, if necessary, to make our own mistakes. A free society is not one in which a person is entitled to hold and practise only beliefs which are considered right and proper and wholesome by the Government of the day. A free society is one in which a person is allowed to hold beliefs and engage in activities which hon. Members or I may consider foolish, misguided, far-fetched, dubious or even distasteful, provided that he does not step into the area which is the proper concern of the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.